A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | February 13, 2013 | Chamber | Session

The House will come to order. Members will take their seats. Visitors
please retire from the chamber. Sergeant at arms please close the doors.
Members and visitors in the gallery please silence all cellular phones
and personal electronic devices. The prayer will be offered by
Representative Bob Steinburg. Members and visitors in the gallery please
stand and please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.
[CHANGE SPEAKER]
Thank you Mister Speaker. Let us pray. Almighty God, we pray thee to
endow us with faith in the providence which heretofore shape the destiny
of our republic. O enable us to realize the sanctity of our mission and
understand that the measure of our power is the measure of our Christian
virtues. We are conscience of a responsibility that is beyond our wisdom
and strength and calls for a power outside of ourselves, even thine own
enlightening power. This help we seek by our humbling petitions,
grateful for past mercies.
We wait for new guidings, deeper insight into the truth and a wider
wisdom of our possibilities. The problems that face us would enervate
and dishearten us but for the confidence we have and the assurance of
thy word and thou will. Guide us by thine eyes and lead us by thy hand
and give us strength as our day. Fulfill this promise: We shall know the
truth and the truth shall make you free. These things we ask in the name
of our lord and savior Jesus Christ, amen.
[CHANGE SPEAKER]
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to
the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
[CHANGE SPEAKER]
Representative Moore is recognized.
[CHANGE SPEAKER]
Mister Speaker, the journal for February 12, 2013 has been examined and
found to be correct. I move it's approval as written.
[CHANGE SPEAKER]
Representative Moore moves that the journal for February 12 be approved
as written. All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes
have it. The journal is approved as written. Petitions, memorials or
papers addressed to the General Assembly or the House? Ratifications to
bills and resolutions the clerk will read.
[CHANGE SPEAKER]
The enrolling clerk reports the following resolution being ratified,
properly enrolled and presented to the office of Secretary of State.
Senate Joint Resolution 47 a Joint Resolution Informing His Excellency,
Governor Pat McCrory, that the General Assembly is Organized and Ready
to Proceed With Public Business and Inviting the Governor to Address a
Joint Session of the Senate and House of Representatives.
[CHANGE SPEAKER]
Chapter bills will be noted. Reports of standing committees and
permanent subcommittees. Representatives Johnson and Langdon are
recognized to send for a committee report. The clerk will read.
[CHANGE SPEAKER]
Education Committee, Representative Johnson and Langdon co-chairs,
committee substitute for Senate Bill 14 Increased Access to Career and
Technical Education, favorable.
[CHANGE SPEAKER]
Calendar
[CHANGE SPEAKER]
House Bill 44 Transition to Digital Learning in Schools, favorable.
[CHANGE SPEAKER]
Committee substitute bill calendar, original bill unfavorable,
calendared.
[CHANGE SPEAKER]
House Bill 23 Digital Competency Learning School/School Employees,
favorable as to the committee substitute, unfavorable as to the original
bill.
[CHANGE SPEAKER]
Committee substitute bill calendar, original bill unfavorable,
calendared.
[CHANGE SPEAKER]
House Bill 45 Internet Access for Public Schools, favorable to the
committee substitute, unfavorable as to the original bill.
[CHANGE SPEAKER]
Bill will be referred to Appropriations Subcommittee on Education

Representative Stevens has recognized to send forth committee report the
clerk will read.
[Speaker Change]
Judiciary sub committee C Representative Stevens, chair, house bill 24,
clarify indecent exposure law favorable.
[Speaker Change]
Counter.
[Speaker Change]
Representatives Julia Howard, Robert Brolley, David Lewis, and Mitchell
recognize to send forth committee report, the clerk will read.
[Speaker Change]
Finance committee, Representative Howard, Senior Chair, Representative
Robert Bally. David Lewis. co-chairs. House bill 13 state property use
bi-annual report favorable.
[Speaker Change]
Counter.
[Speaker Change]
House bill 77 board law examiners update expense law favorable. House
bill 27 workers comp fund. Safety workers allocation favorable to
committee substitute on favor to the original bill.
[Speaker Change]
Committee substitute calender unfavorable calender.
[Speaker Change]
House bill 82 internal revenue code update favorable to the committee
substitute. Unfavorable to the original bill.
[Speaker Change]
Comittee substitute calender. Original bill unfavorable. Calender.
Representative Bloss has recognized to send forth committee report, the
clerk will read.
[Speaker Change]
Representative Bluss with judiciary subcommittee A House bill 15 various
emergent management changes. Favorable to the committee substitute,
unfavorable to the original bill.
[Speaker Change]
Comittee substitute calender. Original bill unfavorable calender.
Introduction bills and resolutions the Clerk will read.
[Speaker Change]
Representative Pearce. Alexander Farmer Butterfield and Ford, house
resolution 91 honor inner ACP anniversary.
[Speaker Change]
Calender pursuant rule 32 A for today's calender.
[Speaker Change]
Reprentative Bluss, House bill 92 general statute corrections 2013.
[Speaker Change]
Rules counter, operation of the house.
[Speaker Change]
Representative Basalle G. Graham. and J. Bell House bill 93 school
calender flexibility craven county.
[Speaker Change]
Education
[Speaker Change]
Representatives Miquel Raff, Samualson, and Mcgrady house bill 94
amended environmental laws for 2013.
[Speaker Change]
Regulatory reform sub-committee on environmental and if favorable
environment, if favorable finance.
[Speaker Change]
Representative Corbett, House bill 95 immune to public safety
dispatchers.
[Speaker Change]
Judiciary subcomitee A
[Speaker Change]
Ladies and gentlemen of the house, please note that house bill 27 is
being referred to the committee on appropriations. Ladies and gentlemen
upon motion the members from Gilford and Cumberland county Alma Adams
and Representative Glasier. The chair is happy to
extend the courtesies of the gallery to students from throughout North
Carolina visiting their legislators for night annual adolescence health
advocacy date. Please stand and let us welcome you.
[Applause]
Representative Bill Brauley please state your purpose.
[Speaker Change]
For a moment of personal privilege
[Speaker Change]
The gentlemen has recognized to re-point a personal privileged.
[Speaker Change]
Thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the house,sometimes laboratories
spring up in odd places so you know the famous examples is the
skunk-works at Lockheed aircraft that invented the U2. The SR 71
blackbird and even the stealth fighter. There is such a laboratory at
independence high school in my district where they are experimenting and
have been for several years with distanced learning. Cindy Wellner is a
teacher of the college and career promise program where children, excuse
me, young people enrolled in the High School
are also taking online courses for college grad credit. Some go on to
attend college, some enter a professions or technical fields based on
that increased learning. There are currently one hundred and ten
students enrolled in this program. 16 are visiting us today. They
have a 98 percent pass rate and graduation rate. Many of them receiving
honors credits for the college courses they take and are currently
served by Stanly Pamleco and Cleveland community college with online
courses and I wanted to tell yall of the brilliant work thats
being done in district one oh three in Methenburg County that we can
model.

and spread statewide to overcome the problems we have in education in
our state. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and
gentlemen of the House, upon motion of Representative Bill Brawley and
the Mecklenburg County delegation and Craig Horn, Representative Craig
Horn and the Union County delegation, the Chair is happy to extend the
courtesies of the gallery to Cindy Welner and 20 of her students from
Independence High School enrolled in the college and career program.
Please stand and let us welcome you. And ladies and gentlemen of the
House, just to save anybody else a trip to the dais to tell me that I
have something on my forehead, today is Ash Wednesday and I am Catholic.
Calendar. House Bill 66. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES]
Committee Substitute for House Bill 66, a bill to be entitled ‘An Act to
Amend the Law Providing for the Issuance of Captivity Licenses and
Permits by the Wildlife Resources Commission’. [SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative West, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak
on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized
to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We had a good vote yesterday on
that bill and I’d appreciate your continued support today. [SPEAKER
CHANGES] Representative Insko, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER
CHANGES] To send forward an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is
recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER
CHANGES] Representative Insko moves to amend the bill on page 1, line
25, by rewriting the line to read… [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is
recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. Members, I’ve had several emails from people not only in my
district but around the state about the potential for really cruelty to
animals and misuse of animals and exposing animals to new activities
that really are outside of the exhibition and education purposes, so all
my amendment does is take out that “other”, the word “other”, so it
really, it closes the door. It narrows this. “Other” is really way too
broad. It really just means “anything else”, and I think that that’s way
too broad and that we can do better by our wildlife in this state. This
state’s always been very respectful and protective of wildlife, and I
would urge you to support my amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative
West, please state our purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the
amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to
debater the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This language was asked for by
the Wildlife Resources Commission to cover any instances that might not
be covered under the bill. I talked to them this morning and they wish
to keep that in the bill, and I would ask you to vote against the
amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the
amendment? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the
amendment sent forth by Representative Insko for the House Committee
Substitute to House Bill 66. All those in favor vote aye. All oppose
vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record,
please do so at this time. The Clerk will lock the machine and record
the vote. 37 having voted in the affirmative and 80 in the negative, the
amendment fails. We are now back on the bill. Further discussion,
further debate? Representative Luebke, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask Representative West a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative West, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I
yield, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER
CHANGES] Representative West, in all of our discussion yesterday and
today, I haven’t heard the word “possum” used. Is this the possum bill?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Well it’ll affect the possum, along with a lot of
other things too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does
the gentleman yield for a follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yields.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But this is… this bill is
a result of a lawsuit and all that that’s been going on, that’s been in
our newspapers. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well yes, the possum was part of the
lawsuit, but that same lawsuit affects a lot of other animals that’s in
captivity too at the zoo and everywhere else. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank
you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative glazier, please state your
purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative West would yield for
a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER
CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank
you, Representative West. This is more related to

the amendment that was passed yesterday and I voted for the bill and
understand its purpose. My question is on the venue provision that was
added in and I guess it's a two-part question. One, was that asked for
by the Wildlife Commission for the venue change and number two, did that
venue change that we made yesterday affect just this issue or does it
change venue for all of the cases that could come under this statute?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I think any cases that come under that statute
that involves a suit with the state will be tried in Wake County.
Anything that's individually tried would be in the county where it was
committed.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Well again I guess my question is did the Commission
ask for the venue change and was there some problem in the venue that
caused the need for it if the Commission did not ask for the venue
change?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] We asked for the venue because if they're going to try
us we want to be tried in our county where we committed the crime.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] One last follow up.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir. I'm tired of yielding.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman does not yield.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not the
question before the House is the passage of the House Committee
substitute to House Bill 66 is amended on its third reading. All those
in favor will vote aye. All those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will
open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 98
having voted in the affirmative and 20 in the negative the House
Committee substitute to House Bill 66 is amended, has passed its third
reading and will be engrossed and sent to the Senate. House Bill 10.
The Clerk will read.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 10. A bill to enact to remove the
restriction of the Turnpike Authority selection of a corridor location
for the southeast extension project of NC 540. ??? Enacts.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to speak to the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Dollar and myself
represents districts that will include most of the southern ?? extension
of I540 and Representative Dollar will explain this in greater detail. I
want to just ask you to vote for it and think about this. A tire on a
car won't work if a dog or a tiger has bit a third of the tire off. A
doughnut isn't that good if you've eaten a fourth of it somebody else
has eaten it and a loop isn't much use if it doesn't finished. We can't
finish this loop for the people of central and eastern North Carolina
unless this bill passes. And Representative Dollar will explain why.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, the
purpose of the bill is to allow the Department of Transportation to
study the so-called red route on the southern extension of the toll road
540, NC540. This is really a jobs bill because unless we take this
action we simply cannot move forward with that road. That road means
thousands of jobs and it also means a greater ability to have movement
across the eastern and central part of our state. So this is a very
critical link. I want to assure, the issue, and you may have been
receiving some e-mails from the folks in Garner, Garner along with the
ITA went to the Federal Government, they spent quite a bit of money
actually to try to see if they could get this thing handled in some way
other than the bill that we have before us today and unfortunately it
couldn't be done. The Federal Government wants to be able to study this.
But an assurance that I want to give you, two things, one, well mainly,
the red route will never be built. It will never be built for two
reasons. Number one, it is not financially feasible. You can't run
through that many neighborhoods and have a financially feasible project.
But number two, if that came back as the only route that we could do for
540 we would run a bill in this chamber and I'm sure the Senate as well
and we would simply stop the project. We wouldn't do it. Our preference
is

To do what was planned twenty hears ago. And to run this thing on the
orange route. We've gotta go through the federal hoops to get there. I
would appreciate your support and I'd be happy to answer any questions
that you may have. Also I wanna thank the transportation committee I
believe we had a unanimous vote out of there yesterday.[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative Steinberg please state your purpose. Representative
Jackson please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mr speaker members I'll be brief because I
know what the vote is gonna be but I'm gonna ask you to vote red on the
red route. There's a couple facts that representative Stand and
representative Dollar left out. And there facts that are very important
that I heard from the other side of the chamber for the last couple
weeks. And its about our federal deficit and wasting money and not
accepting federal money cause its borrowed. Well to study this route,
its gonna cost 12 to 15 million dollars. For a route we know will never
be built. Representative Dollar just gave you that pledge on the house
floor. We already have a bill from two years ago that says this route
will never be built. But now they're asking you to undo that and to
truth them. To let us spend 12 to 15 million dollars over the next two
to four years. And shut the town of Garner down while we do so, for a
route we know will never be built. And I just ask you does that make
sense? Does that fit with the philosophy of the things you've heard
about the federal government and spending federal money? This is a jobs
bill this a jobs killer bill for Garner. Representative Gil,
Representative Ross and myself, we represent the town of Garner.
Representative Stan, representative Dollar, they represent the towns
south of Garner that will benefit from this route and opening it on up.
This will run right through Garner. Within weeks of the passage of the
bill two years ago, to ban the red route, companies started doing
business in Garner again for the first time in years. 250 jobs, 12
million dollars invested. Within weeks of the bill passing the last
time. An average page of 50 thousand dollars. This route goes through 13
neighborhoods, through the business park in Garner. And would take
approximately 8% of the towns tax base. I'd ask you to vote red on this.
Lets not waste this money. Lets figure out a different alternative. This
is not it.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, please state your
purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] yes mr speaker thank you to debate the bill
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, general assembly, I appreciate
this opportunity for the house. I was in transportation yesterday when
this bill came up. The more I learned about this bill, a lot has already
been spoken of. We're essentially talking about a red route that's never
going to be built. And I just went home and I thought if the people back
home knew that we spent 15 million dollars so engineers can have a job
to do nothing cause you know its not gonna happen. The OTC knows its not
gonna happen. I don't think there's a person in this room that thinks
that Red Routes gonna happen. Now i understand that essentially we like
to look at alternative routes. But folks we got to increase our
communication. Somewhere along the line between the state and the
federal level there's a broken line of communication. Because if we had
this problem back home in our districts. We could fix it. But 15 million
dollars, when we watch the tv, and we watch the national deficit,
everyday tick. You know what, you gotta start counting the pennies. And
this is the time. I ask you not to support this bill. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bell Brawley please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr
Speaker. I' was in the transportation meeting yesterday and it studied
this bill. And I absolutely agree with everything that has been said.
Its a waste of money to study a road that's never gonna be built. And if
we had the choice to not do the study we will not do the study but we do
not have the choice. Unfortunately the federal government frequently
makes you do things. Many roads in my own county of Meklemberg have been
made in a way that do not work because you build what you can get funded
and not what you need. This is a case of where the federal government
has said we will withdraw federal road funding for the entire 540
project if you do not study the red route which you have eliminated
legislatively. Now understand, they don't tell us we have to pick the
red route. They don't tell us we have to build the red route. But they
tell us if we don't study as an alternative to a protective wildlife
area they will not fund the project. The problem is not in this chamber
wanting to waste money. The problem is in Washington DC that is forcing
us to waste the money that we tried not to waste. I'm going to support
this bill, and be angry at a federal government that requires us to ...

[SPEAKER] place this $15 million that quite frankly we could put on
another road project if they would let us spend it in a way that made
sense instead of a way that follows their regulations. I ask you to
support the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill a second time.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill a
second time.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I would have to say amen to Representative
Brawley. And I would further add that all of these projects have
environmental impact statements. You’re going to spend $12 or $15
million on a project of this size doing an environment impact statement
of some sort or another.
It’s not a matter of the money in this case. It’s a matter of whether or
not we allow a particular alternative to be studied. You know, if
someone wants to lay blame, the blame is with DOT many years ago who
laid this out as an alternative. You know, somebody made a mistake back
them but, you know, and it’s one that we have to deal with now.
I have sympathy with Representative Jackson although I would add that
actually now in my district I represent part of Garner, and I represent
part of the area where this route would go through. But I understand
what it is we’re doing. We are having to do this so that we can actually
move forward and don’t forget the property rights of those people who
are on the orange route. That’s where we want the road to go.
Those people have been waiting for twenty years on their property
knowing that it was supposed to be used for this route, this 540. They
haven’t been able to sell. They haven’t been able to do things. So
they’re stuck. And their property rights are just going to sit there
until we break the log jam. Unfortunately, it’s back to the state. It’s
the General Assembly that has to be the adults here. We have to break
the log jam. We have to move this forward.
And I would just point to two other quick things. One, Section 2 was
placed in there directing the Department of Transportation to expedite
this federal environmental impact statement so we can get on with the
process, relieve the people in Garner.
And I thought it was very noteworthy that the Mayor of Garner was there
yesterday. And he said in the committee, before the committee, that
although he doesn't like it, obviously he’s got concerns with his
constituents. But he understands that this action has to be done so we
can move forward, get this project done and help out not only Southern
Way County but also Eastern North Carolina. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pittman, please state your purpose?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I’d like to ask
Representative Nelson a question and possibly speak to the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, does the gentleman yield?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I mean Dollar, I’m sorry. I’m used to calling him
Nelson.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, so if we don’t pass this bill
today, what does that mean in terms of ever getting the thing built at
all. I mean, is this just going to be held up forever if we don’t
approve doing this?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s correct. It would be held up essentially ‘til
kingdom comes. I mean, it’s a project that we have to have federal
involvement on. They will not participate in the project and help with
the financing which is critical to the project unless that route’s
allowed to be studied, it will not move forward. And they have made that
very clear and very plain.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Mr. Speaker, if I may?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate Representative Jackson pointed out so
clearly that it doesn't matter if you’re a Republican or Democrat, on
this issue it’s nonsense. It makes absolutely no sense for us to have to
spend all these millions of dollars when we know we have no intention of
passing this thing. And I promise to speaker for Garner that if it ever
comes up, you know, to actually build it the wrong way, I’ll vote, no.
But today as much as I hate to spend that money, this is not a situation
where we’re not left with much of a choice. We’re between a rock and a
hard place because the Federal Government puts us there. Personally, I’m
sorry if I’m going to offend some people but I’m going to tell you, I’m
one of those people who believes it’s about time for the states to
start, you know, remind the Federal Government that the states created
the Federal Government and not the other way around. And they’re
supposed to be our servants, not our masters.
So, I hope that we’re going to start some push back on this kind of
thing at some point. But at the moment, you know, we can’t do that
today. And as much as I absolutely hate with all my being spending that
money on something that shouldn't have to be done, I’m afraid that very
reluctantly, I’m going to have to vote for this bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Further discussion

[SPEAKER] Question for the debate? If not, the question before the House
is the passage of House Bill 10 on its second reading. All those in
favor vote aye. All oppose vote no. The clerk will open the vote.
The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 79 having voted in the
affirmative and 37 in the negative, the House Bill 10 has passed the
second reading. Representative Jones, please state your purpose?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to ask Representative
Dollar a question if I could.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, does the gentleman yield?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Dollar. I just wondered if
you could give an approximate cost of the entire project and maybe put
this amount in perspective next to the entire cost. Do you know about
what that would be?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I apologize. I don’t have that with me but I
mean it’s several hundreds, hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s well
over a billion because we've already built the western piece of this
project.
So we’re being in a billion and a half maybe already in on this project
where it’s built and it’s up, and it’s opened today. So, this is the
next link. We need to link this. It will link 1, it will link U.S. 1, it
will link U.S. 64 to 40 and all the way up to 40 from the east side of
Raleigh all the way over to the west side.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ??, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] A point of order.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his point of order?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] We passed the bill on a second reading. I see it’s
still on the second reading. ?? need talking about it.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] It will be moving to it’s third reading. I’ve not had
it read a third time because Representative Jones illuminated his light
at the point in time I was calling for the question on the second
reading and was about to read it for a third time. Further discussion,
further debate, without objection.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I object, Mr. Speaker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill will remain on the counter. Ladies and
gentlemen it is the intent of the Chair, just for your information, we
will be coming in at 1:00 tomorrow. I anticipate an object to Senate
Bill 10. We’ve got an objection to the, well we just got the Senate Bill
10 objection. I expect an object to Senate Bill 4. So I would suggest
that you keep your afternoon calendar tomorrow open. House Bill 24, the
clerk will read.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for House Bill 24, the bill has
been entitled an act to prove that the District Attorney is to be
notified if a person on supervised or unsupervised probation is
discharged from a domestic violence abuser treatment program for failure
to comply with the program or its rules. The General Assembly of North
Carolina enacts.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth an amendment first of all, if I may, Mr.
Speaker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an
amendment. The clerk will read.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative T. Moore moves to amend the bill on
page 1, line 5, by rewriting those lines to read.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to abate the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Mr. Speaker, members of the House, the
amendment that is sent forth is simply a technical amendment that was
requested by the Administrative Officer of the Courts and would ask you
to support the amendment. Then after, assuming that it’s passed, I’ll be
glad to explain the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the
question before the House is the passage of the amendment set forth by
Representative Tim Moore to the House Committee Substitute for House
Bill 24. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open
the vote. The clerk will allow the machine to record the vote. 116
having voted affirmative and 1 in the negative. The amendment passes. We
are not back on the bill. The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill
as amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members of the House. This
bill was requested by district attorneys and judges back in my region
that I had spoken with that found a slight glitch with the bill we
passed last year having to do with notification when defendants did not
complete domestic violence abuser treatment programs. Under the present
law, unless this is enacted, every single case where a defendant sought
unsupervised probation must be brought in for a review hearing to ensure
that there was compliance. This is going to create

...made a significant log jam in domestic violence courts around the
State if we simply do it this way. The other proposal that came up was
to simply put a mechanism in place where there's automatic notification
sent to the district attorney. And if the offender in that case did not
complete the treatment program than the district attorney would simply
notice it on for a probation violation hearing. It's just a judicial
efficiency bill that still allows the follow up to ensure compliance but
just does it in a way that's not going to create an overload. And the
folks who asked for this, again, were actually domestic violence
prosecutors and some judges who were very serious on ensuring that
domestic violence criminals go to jail and are punished.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McManus, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I pushed the wrong button awhile ago and I meant to
vote yes instead of no, and I don't know if that can be changed.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] If the lady wishes to change her vote, she will be
recorded as having voted yes on the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Baskerville, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] A question for Representative Moore.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, does the gentleman yield?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I do.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I agree in substance and in essence with the bill. My
only question is there's a requirement that the provider of these
programs notify the probation officer. The probation officer is supposed
to notify the district attorney. But there is then no follow up on, is
the probation officer directed to violate this person's probation and
try to send them to jail for not completing this domestic violence
abuser treatment program? I can see a situation where there's going to
be some limbo in there whether or not the defendant willfully didn't
complete that particular treatment program. There's no enforcement
mechanism that sends these people to jail if they don't comply with the
program.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Baskerville, the way this would work
is, and I know your an attorney and you may have dealt with these cases
in court, is when the probation officer makes the referral to the
district attorney, the district attorney then has the obligation as the
State's prosecutor to have the motion filed for the probation violation.
In which case, a number of remedies are available. One would be that the
sentence be modified and the person made to go complete the domestic
violence treatment. That the offender's prison sentence is activated or
any a number of other penalties that are sought.
As far as the mechanism or the wheels turning, this language is language
that was run by the, I believe, the conference of DA's was present in
the Judiciary Committee, AOC's involved. All of the parties who are
going to be dealing with this on the ground seem to be satisfied with
this language. But I assure you that if for some reason it gets to the
Senate and there is some other snag that we didn't think of, I'll be
amenable to any amendment, but this language, again, was not something
that I came up with. I was trying to fix a problem for these folks who
are dealing with it.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll yield.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? He yields.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] That particular language you just used would have
been, would alleviate this situation. Requiring the district attorney to
file a violation report. I mean that's just a simple, that's just one
sentence that could be put in there that would satisfy my concerns about
this bill. But I do think it's a good bill. I completely agree with it.
I just wanted it to be enforcement mechanism. Maybe that will be
addressed in the Senate.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Baskerville, the amendment sent forth
by Representative Moore changes the title and therefore we won't have a
third reading on this bill today. That maybe something you want to
discuss with the sponsor overnight.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the bill, as
amended? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the
House Committee Substitute to House Bill 24, as amended, on its second
reading. All those in favor vote aye, all those opposed vote no. The
clerk will open the vote.
Really, the clerk can open the vote.
Anybody know a good joke?
You can vote at this time. But, a hundred and eight...

Already caught on. The clerk will lock the machine to record the vote.
112 having vote in the affirmative and none in the negative. The house
committee substitute to house bill 24 as amended has passed its second
reading and will remain on the calendar. Members there were six members
I think at least 5 of whom who were in the room who did not record a
vote. If you choose to do so please indicate that you want to and rise
for that request. Representative Luebke please state your person.
Representative Baskerville please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE]
I'd like to be recorded as voting yay or yes for the bill [SPEAKER
CHANGE] The gentlemen will be recorded as voting aye on house bill 24
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Szoka please state your purpose.[SPEAKER
CHANGE] I will also like to be recorded as voting aye [SPEAKER CHANGE]
gentlemen will be recorded as voting aye on house bill 24.
Representative Brian please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGE] I'd
like to be recorded as voting aye [SPEAKER CHANGE] the gentlemen will be
recorded as voting aye on house representative Dwayne Hall please state
your purpose.[SPEAKER CHANGE] i'd also like to be recorded as voting
aye.[SPEAKER CHANGE]the gentlemen will be recorded as voting aye. The
house will be at ease. Ladies and gentlemen of the house earlier we read
in for immediate consideration on today calendar house resolution 91.
The chair anticipates a somewhat lengthy debate on senate bill 4 so
without objection we would like to move ahead in the calendar to house
resolution 91. Is there objection? Seeing none. House resolution 91 the
clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] A joint resolution honoring the
founders of the NAACP on the occasion of the organizations anniversary
the house resolves.[SPEAKER CHANGE] representative pier state your
purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE]speak on the resolution [SPEAKER CHANGE] the
gentlemen is recognized to debate the resolution the house will come to
order. [SPEAKER CHANGE] thank you mr speaker for allowing us this
opportunity this afternoon. Can I have it read in its entirety mr
speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] the clerk will read. the house will come to
order. [SPEAKER CHANGE] National Association for the advancement of
colored people NAACP was founded on February 12 1909 in New york city
and whereas the NAACP founders consisted of a multi racial group of
activists including Ivy Wells Burnette, WEB Dwas, Henry Wascovis, Barry
White Ovington, Oswald Garrison Belard, William Iglis Walling. ?? NAACP
mission is to ensure the political, educational, and social and economic
rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial
discrimination. And whereas according to the NAACP constitutions, some
of the organizations objectives include removing all barriers of racial
discrimination through democratic processes. Seeking an admen
enforcement of federal state and local laws securing civil rights. And
informing the public of the adverse effects of racial discrimination.
And how to make lawful action to help eliminate racial discrimination.
And whereas the NAACP advances its mission through the press, petition
and the courts. And whereas the NAACP has been persistent in achieving
its goals through non violence using effective means such as lobbying,
demonstrations and marching. And whereas after ears of fighting
segregation in public schools, the NAACP lawyers led by Thurgood
Marshall, won a great legal victory in the supreme court 1954 decision
in browns vs board of education. And whereas a year later in 1955 the
sector the Montgomery branch of the NAACP Rosa Parks was arrested and
fined when she refused to give up her seat on a segregated bus. In her
home town in Alabama. An act of courage that served as a catalyst for
the largest grass roots civil rights movement in the history of the
United States. And whereas the NAACP provided critical leadership ..

in grass roots support for the multiracial movement that won passage of
the civil rights act of 1957, 1960, and 1964, the voting rights act of
1965, the fair housing act of 1968, and the Fanny-Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks
and Coretta Scott King voting rights act re-authorization and amendments
act of 2006. Laws that ensured legislative protection for victories in
the courts, and whereas in 2005, in the aftermaths of hurricanes Katrina
and Rita, the NAACP launched the disaster relief fund to help survivors
in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, and Alabama rebuild their
lives. And whereas the dedicated workers, organizers and leaders who
comprise the NAACP have worked tirelessly in the front lines of social,
political, and economic justice. And whereas in North Carolina the
conference of the NAACP branches has been lead by Kelly Alexander Sr.,
Kelly Alexander Jr., Melvin Skip Austen, and now Rev. William J. Barber
II. Whereas the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP branches has
succeeded and continues to accomplish its civil rights and social
justice work with the support from executive secretaries, directors,
Charles A. McClane, Carol Q. Coleman, Mary Peeler, Rev. Dr. George
Allison, James Wiggins, and now ?? Josie Turner, and whereas the North
Carolina chapter of the NAACP is one of the larges state NAACPs in the
south, with over 100 adult branches, youth councils in high schools and
college chapters across the width and breadth of North Carolina. And
whereas for the last 7 years, the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP
has held an annual historic thousands on Jones street peoples' assembly
to bring about awareness of social, political, and economic injustices
in the state, and whereas the assembly held on Feb. 9, 2013 attracted
thousands of participants from across the state including
representatives of 140 coalition groups, now therefore be it resolved by
the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring.
Section 1, the General Assembly honors the memory of those who founded
the NAACP and expresses appreciation for their vision and the service to
our nation and state.
Section 2, the General Assembly expresses appreciation for its
significant contributions to social change.
Section 3, the Secretary of State shall transmit a certifying copy of
this resolution to the President of the North Carolina chapter of the
NAACP.
Section 4, this resolution is effective upon ratification.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The House be at ease. Rep. Pierce, please approach the dais.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have just a minor technical
amendment we have to take care of, so that this resolution can be
properly forwarded. At the end of it, then Representative Moore will be
recognized briefly for a motion for that purpose. The Chair would
respectfully request your support for the amendment.
Representative Moore is recognized for a motion.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
...Move that proceduraly we request a corrected jackets of this would be
a joint resolution in the [??] same manner.
[speaker changes]
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this arose as a result of a
discrepancy, I guess, in the drafting process between what was on the
jacket and what was in the bill. This just corrects the jackets so that
it can be properly disposed of.
Further discussion, further debate on the motion. If not, the question
before the House is the passage of the motion by Representative Moore to
the House resolution 91. All in favor vote Aye, all opposed vote No.
The Clerk will open the vote.
The clerk will [??] clock machine record the vote. 108 having voted in
the affirmative and none in the negative. The motion passes. Now we are
back on the resolution.
Representative Pierce is recognized to debate the resolution.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Ladies and gentlemen, and those in the audience. This afternoon, I would
really hate to think what America would look like. What America would be
like today; what this General Assembly might look like, had it not been
for a small group of like minded people here in February 12, 1909, who
came together to organize what we know now as the National Association
of the Advancement of Colored People.
With organizations like the NAACP, had they remained silent, where would
many... The thing I really want to express this afternoon is that this
organization has helped many regardless of the color of their skin,
their ethnic... whatever, the NAACP was there. And a lot of benefits
that all of America and all of this state enjoys is because of the work
of the NAACP. Things like voting rights, economic empowerment, health
care and education. This organization, without [??] ceasing, has
continued to be an organization to work for the betterment of all of
humanity. The NAACP as an organization has challenged many things.
Continues to fight. One that the NAACP is working on now is that of ??
Parve. Many of us have heard much about that, and we will continue to
hear a lot more of ?? Parve in the great State of North Carolina.
More than a half million members have supported the NAACP branches
throughout the United States and the State of North Carolina. Continues
to advocate for civil rights in their communities campaign for equal
opportunities and conduct voting education whenever possible. The NAACP
continues to seek to remove all barriers that would discriminate
against anybody in the State of North Carolina and America.
I am glad to stand this afternoon as we celebrate Founder's Day which
was on February 12. Also, Mr. Speaker, there are others who would like
to give their comments. However, I thank you, Mr.Speaker, for allowing
us this time to talk about the beloved organization, the NAACP; the
oldest, the biggest, the baddest, the most talked about, the most
feared, the most hated, the most discussed organization anywhere, the
NAACP. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative [??] Bludgie please state your purpose.
To speak on the resolution.
Gentlemen, it is recognized to debate the resolution.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Members of the House, it is extremely important for all of us to
remember just how important the NAACP has been in North Carolina in
terms of fighting for equal rights. Fighting for equality. It is a
situation in which in our state--it's not in honor of our state, but
actually, this honor of our state--that when the NAACP was fighting for
equal rights in the 1950's, for example, and before that as well, that
many people would say, well, the NACP, yeah, that's a group out there
and they are exactly like the Klu Klux Klan...

disadvantages of it and after time the NAACP the fight for racial
equality and reliever anybody's of houses role as the audience back in
honor of those comments chimes in. The Tennessee, said at the NAACP was
comparable to normal after the position of the Ku Klux Klan ?? that was
devastated, is the hope we all remember just when all of the Bosnian is
wise up as an organization of a young guy I'm a CD of staff for just the
quantity and lots of people an hour to score the resolution and present
one PlayStation time city, most states does recognize made resolution
the state of times came in a TCP as other people here today in one day
this organization had gone with the way he and riled up its own
decisions being made in the I only use a time has come as the A's
(SPEAKER CHANGES)
He lacked the man in the beta phi commission ?? per diem option run or
walk in and he can sit on our battle to time Bartels which would not be
used in six of its Chai Larsen major role in the sixth when Wells out
ski free and Albright and 1965 ritual of the Andrea is not politics will
be one in two years ago to
Six a and ?? and where it is in the box office ?? if you're a lawyer
even in a strange industry are always in this nation summit meeting in
jail time, the Adriatic Sea wall street person to shut the station
purpose ?? to become a resolution because recognizing a resolution of
state-level house the Ana’s and then drive, artistry, they haven't some
rational and I can speak to you from the time is a system called the
heart of life and Medicare and all of people: follow the audience
fifties and sixties times box and would you want a pretrial hearing, a
CD, and he was given an extension of the up with the goddess in-line as
the devil were you, I'm making any clients with companies and other
commercial to have an interest that I'm tired of the hungry hero in
mid-Robertson, I'm only sorry, ma'am Roberson-age ?? it's admires to
dissipate in markets, and most of the Internet in the credits seven, CD
radio, I'm down to Richard win the right way and have a CD- ram things
happen and making the content of the times that is an option with the
NAACP in the province of his network and combative and, of course if
you're not suggesting a time of the issues at the event, coliseum, after
the preceding the ?? and not that the actions of the opposition
man-in-store that we have a clue and given the opportunity ??...........

...good to see another side of life in this country that you would
refuse to want to see before. We're here now, you recognize us, all
because of the work of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People. And I know that there are those here and those outside
who do not ... who really just hate, the word hate to term, hate to see
us coming in that vein. But what you've got to realize is that there
are still problems that exist, that the work of the organization is not
over. And it won't be over for some time. Because while I can't make
you love me, I can ask and make you respect me. And that's how we get
to where we are today. And so, irrespective of what your feelings are,
however you want to couch it, remember that this organization has made
significant contributions to this country. I hope that in voting for
this resolution that you will remember that. I commend the resolution
to you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative Kelly Alexander, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speak on the resolution.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The gentleman is recognized to debate the resolution.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, it's with great emotion welling up
within me that I stand here today, because as a student of history, I
think it's important that you understand why it was necessary for an
organization for the NAACP to be created in the first place.
If you would journey back with me to the turn of the last century, the
last decade of the nineteenth century, when North Carolina saw the
overthrow of a duly elected government in Wilmington because their
government happened to have been too black and too liberal. That was a
time when the state's newspapers were, to be polite, we'd call them
white supremacist. But having read some of the things that were printed
in my hometown newspaper, today you'd get arrested for saying that kind
of stuff. That was a time, too, when the disenfranchisement movement
was rampant. We had just come out of Reconstruction, and a lot of folks
were mad, in this state and in other places, that black folk were
exercising the right to vote. And so in North Carolina, we changed our
Constitution. We added a section which unfortunately is still a part of
our Constitution, Article Six Section Four that requires a literacy test
in order for anyone to register and vote. We had lynching going on.
Ida Wells-Barnett had just written a book called The Red Record, which
recalled all of the folk who had been lynched up to that point. I
believe there was some 5,000 names. That was a period of time when the
United States Congress refused to address lynching. And incidentally,
we never did pass a federal anti-lynching law.
All of that was going on when a group of folk, some of which had
harkened back to the time of the abolitionist, came together, black and
white, Jew and gentile, and started discussing and debating what could
be done to make the words of our federal Constitution real. Now
remember, one of the most radical things that had happened ...[AUDIO
ENDS].

Up until that time was when the President of the United States invited
Booker T. Washington to dine in the White House. And because that
happened, everybody was all bent out of shape. I mean how dare you have
a black man even though he was one of them good. Well, y’all know I
can’t say that in here like ??. But that’s the mentality, that’s where
we were when the NAACP was brought into being. I want to remind you that
a couple of folk who have been associated with the NAACP you might know.
Some of you may be aware of Julius Chambers, a great jurist, former
chancellor of North Carolina Central University not too far from here,
head of NAACP Legal Defense Fund at one time, a great lawyer, an active
NAACP member. One of the reasons that I remember Julius is that as a
young man he wrote a letter to my father. And my father responded,
encouraging him to not only to stay the course in the law, but to get
involved in civil rights. He did and the rest is history. There’s a good
friend of mine whose serving in Congress right now whose also involved
with the NAACP. We grew up in the organization together. Congressman G.
K. Butterfield. And again some of you are familiar with his career. He’s
done a number of very important things. There was a time that this body
would not have been integrated. The notion of having black members, of
having a black Speaker would have been beyond the pale. We’ve come a
long way. I remember the first time I came into this building. We were
talking about the 50 year anniversary of the building the other day. I
came into it the year that my uncle was elected as one of the two first
black members to serve in the Senate. And I remember being up on the
third floor there and sitting in the gallery where he was sworn in, and
then walking across and looking down into this Chamber. Never realizing
that one day that I would have the opportunity to stand here. NAACP
because it has engaged in voter registration, voter mobilization, and
voter education throughout my entire lifetime is one of the reasons that
I am here. Like I said I’m kind of emotional about this anniversary,
but I commend this resolution to you. Because the NAACP is not just
about black folk, it’s about all of us. It’s about making what our
Constitution is about real. It’s the reason that all of us regardless of
our ideology, regardless of our religion, regardless of our individual
histories, can be here in this room and work together and can try to
wrestle with the future of our great State. One of my favorite
presidents once said, “Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not
for themselves.” The sixteenth president of the United States, Abraham
Lincoln was right then and he’s right now.

[SPEAKER] Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Falmer Butterfield, please state your
purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the resolution.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the resolution.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] All of my life I've known the NAACP as a grassroots
supported advocacy organization that involved a multi-racial movement.
And rather to be redundant and share what has already been shared, I
wanted to talk about a couple of cases in my district that involved
black males being in prison.
The first one, thanks to the NAACP was released and is now in college.
The most recent one you probably saw on the news last evening. John
McNeil was a college graduate. He and his wife both finished college,
got married, moved to Atlanta, Georgia from Wilson and they bought a
house and had it built from scratch by a general contractor.
The general contractor came upon the property, engaged in dispute with
Mr. McNeil, refused to leave his property and indeed had a gun. And
before he shot Mr. McNeil, Mr. McNeil shot him. Now, the policemen in
Georgia, two white policemen, spoke on his behalf, Mr. McNeil the
African American, and definitely said that he was not guilty. So he was
released.
Shortly thereafter he was arrested. His wife fought to get him out of
prison with the NAACP and every group she could work with in this state,
and indeed in Georgia to try to get her husband out of prison.
Unfortunately, she was funeralized this past Sunday due to cancer.
Now, some of us feel that the stress that she experienced from this idea
might have helped with that early death. She was only about 40 years
old. Now, he was not at the funeral on Sunday but last night I saw on TV
where he was released from jail and is now free. So that’s an example
of what the NAACP has done in my community. And I commend this
resolution to you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the
question before the House is the passage of House Joint Resolution 91 on
its second reading. All those in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no.
The clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record please do so
at this time. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 109 having
voted affirmative and none in the negative, House Joint Resolution has
passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third
time.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The House resolves the Senate concurring.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the
question before the House is the passing of House Joint Resolution 91 on
its third reading. All those in favor say aye [AYE]. All opposed say no.
The ayes have. House Joint Resolution 91 has passed its third reading
and will be sent to the Senate. Representative Brown, please state your
purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was brought to my attention
that I was not recorded as voting on House Bill 24. I would like to be
placed on record as voting aye on House Bill 24.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen will be recorded as having voted aye.
Representative Floyd, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry ??, Mr. Speaker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen may state his inquiry.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I may have a senior moment. I just to
know that I pushed the green button.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair believes that you did but we will confirm
and get back with you if that’s not the case along with any others who
may have had a senior moment. The gentleman was recorded as having
voted aye. The House

??
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Ladies and gentlemen before we move to Senate Bill 4, we have another
matter that I do not believe is controversial that we would like to
dispose of first and that is Senate Bill 14. Education/Higher Education
Committee Substitute. It’s the increase access to career and technical
ed. Without objection.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Mr. Speaker, objection?
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative Luebke, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
To object. I think that bill does deserve debate.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The gentleman would have plenty of time to debate. The question is
whether or not it comes on today’s calendar or it’s added to tomorrow’s
calendar.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Tomorrow please.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The Chair will observe that if you have early Valentines day plans, you
may want to adjust them. Senate Bill 4, the clerk will read.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 4. A bill to be entitled, an
act to clarify the state’s intent not to operate its state run or
partnership health benefit exchange. To provide that the future of
Medicaid eligibility determinations will be made by the state rather
than the federally facilitated exchange and to reject the Affordable
Care Act’s optional Medicaid expansion. General Assembly of North
Carolina enacts.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative Burr, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speak on the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 4, which we have before us today is
very similar to the bill which was sent over from the Senate. Although
this is PCS with several technical changes to it and also can report as
I’m sure many of you saw yesterday that the Governor is in support of
this proposed Committee Substitute, the current bill that you have
before us. I want to run through the bill and give an explanation and
hit on the four major pieces of Senate Bill 4. The first major piece is
that, well we’re saying no to the state based exchange, the partnership
which the Department of Insurance is currently working on. The second
piece is telling DoI that it must stop all partnership implementation
and return the remaining grant funds to the federal government. The
third piece of this bill is saying no to the Medicaid expansion for the
state of North Carolina. The fourth piece is insuring that the
Department of Health and Human Services can continue implementing the
necessary steps to ensure that the NC Fast System, which is our Medicaid
IT system, that it is up and running so that the state can make its own
eligibility determination. Which is critical when it comes to Medicaid
and we certainly want to make sure that it is our decision making
process that is done there. Why is this bill before you? Why are we
proposing this? I’d like to run through that with you and starting out
with the exchange. Members, there’s really no such thing as a state
based exchange. No matter the type of exchange, the state will not have
really any authority over their health care exchange. Washington will
dictate the structure of the exchange and they will dictate the details
of the plans on the exchange. At this point really there’s a lot of
unknowns. Still too many unknowns to really know what’s going to
happen, where we will end up with the exchange and it’s certainly a risk
that we don’t want to put on the state and burden the tax payers even
more. The partnership and the state based exchange are really an
illusion. There’s really no difference between a state based exchange,
a partnership and a federal exchange. The rules for how the state will
operate in the exchange are these right here. And whether it’s in the
authority that the secretary has. And whether it’s a federal exchange,
these are the rules, these are the guidelines for the secretary and the
state. If it’s a partnership exchange, these are the same rules. If
ti’s a state exchange, these are the same rules. There’s virtually no
difference. So with all due respect to the folks in D.C., this is their
idea.

Idea ,they wanted to create this. They should manage it and implement it
the way they intend to and it should not be a burden put on the state.
In terms of the Medicaid portion of this bill, it’s pretty clear I think
man y of you probably saw that the auditor did an audit of Medicaid and
that we’ve still have a lot of work to do with our current Medicaid
program. And we’ve got a lot to fix and it was certainly an alarming
report and did not shed a very good light on North Carolina’s current
Medicaid system. As I said yesterday in Committee, if your house if
falling apart, you don’t build an extension. You don’t build onto your
home if your home is not in good shape. You start by fixing the
existing structure. Which is what we need to do in the state of North
Carolina before there’s ever any consideration given to expanding
Medicaid. And the second point with why we should say no in terms of the
Medicaid is, and you’re going to hear the argument made I’m sure,
there’s no such thing as free money. There’s this idea that we get free
money with the Medicaid expansion. This is not money that gets sprinkled
down from Washington. This is the tax payer’s money. This is money we’re
borrowing from other countries. This is money we don’t have at this
time and we certainly don’t need to be putting our tax payers, giving
them this burden. And the problem is really this money’s thrown out
there, the idea is that this is free money and it’s dangled before us
and we should grab it and take it. The problem is when you grab this
free money there’s a hook. And you’ve really put yourself in a box that
you can’t get out of. And you find out with that hook there’s a lot of
strings attached, and at the end of that strings there’s a pretty big
bill that’s putting the tax payers on the hook for even more money down
the road. Another point with the Medicaid expansion is, even beyond the
3 years where they’re supposedly covering the 100%, we don’t really know
what the federal government’s going to do in the next 2, 3 5, 10 years
down the road. They could come up and make a change to the federal
match and make a cut to that. Which again would put the tax payers on
the hook for an even larger amount than what we are even expecting to
pay. And in terms of the free money idea that the federal government’s
going to pick up the tab for the full amount for the first 3 years, it’s
simply not true. Because of the fact that the state’s still going to be
on the hook for 50% of the administration costs, the admin costs and at
least 10% of the IT costs for any expansion in Medicaid. And again, this
is all coming out of the tax payer’s pocket. It just depends on which
pocket it’s coming out of and do we want to put our citizens of the
state, give them that burden? And I simply say to you that we don’t at
this time, certainly not. We need to get over our addiction of trying
to just simply take federal money whenever it’s offered to us and get
beyond that. And I think that is something that we’ll be able to do
today to make sure that we’re facing the challenges we already have in
North Carolina without creating additional challenges. We need to make
sure the folks currently on the Medicaid rolls, the 1.5, 1.6 million
individuals, that they have a good program. And we need to make sure
that is in the best shape it can be before any consideration is given to
any kind of expansion. This is too great a risk to the tax payers of our
state. And there is uncertainly after uncertainly after uncertainty that
any of this is going to happen. We simply don’t know. There’s still a
rule making process that they’re making it up as they go along in a lot
of respects. But what we do know is that it’s not in many cases, a
decision that the state’s going to get to make, it’s a decision that the
federal government’s going to get to make and dictate down to the state
if we so choose to entangle ourselves into many of these creatures that
they have further expanded. And I understand we have a few amendments
and I’ll save some additional comments when those come up. But members,
we have an opportunity today to make sure that we’re meeting our current
needs, that we’re focusing on those items and not continuing to grow and
expand government.

?? ?? and I think that is a video that we have unable to work only the
second work on dime and that we certainly have enjoyed the movie out as
a teenager that all these of time in 20 of sick to be eligible for the
station and are always make sure that in North Carolina they are
successful in Vienna, making a timer and then we're not wording that *
organize the selected for additional taxes and fees and all the users of
the puzzle on this be love and the possibilities and we will have trial
and more and more and more streak alive and simply decided as we
continue this time the server and say it but it has been have been the
memoir of the case is not an interesting it is time event in the past
using rate NYSE stocks declined as it sounds of more wanted to do is use
and abuse time the system would you rather see an education and
transportation or major change in attitude taxpayers the biggest and
there are a own mind as a time that one of those are the only additional
questions, Mr. Support on a single form that has been person as the
PlayStation purpose chime ice in Florida you is written as important
partly when city analyst until page one like you and on electing of the
following you is recognized in an IP is a senior matter is, are ?? when
Caroline department of insurance or assisting the stairs and healthier
planes and are using its theme Parks are on China are scenes rinsing Z
regulations currently are declines per me all the other is a grin it's
time for us and our key battle lines are a major insurance market share
and so here are each provider's node riled at people are in the current
insurance for winds down Zaire Air and nonprofits me since the Elena
Cindy L reed and C authority of our Time Insurance minister any
information on informal hearing in our interest provisions are already
low and sell time in his provisions people are throwing are used in our
plan is to create orange on what is now are more time deals are my ears
are an eventual outfielder is backing to go to washington's think our
time resolve if it rains in our market. The all of our sell my present
changes S and drivers are nothing in the east and Mary are in share
information act to extend our team has won it all with the ?? in the
house has not stand still think it's next best thing going for Carey
says no steady ??, is that are in my head would bring are his delegate
from last season, stains and one thing all in the lineup is there isn't
a timescale and wired or above the median is not be denied coverage for
??ren to princess the nation's presence. A concentration in times of the
father of local and private insurance if it wasn't easy now lives right
minutes or until at least I'm a range was USS negotiations that the
price right here in RSA and an hour and sell his time on my knees and
seemed always to knock it has changed its name of bill and all he did
not prevent disease support aisled per one -purpose use the phone in the
last four; I can share in at times, as CNN's year of the disease and as
a reactive as an investor enthusiasm and Steve, this is an issue that,
we are aware of AT&T's I must sign in using the word share he acted
as a union that there haven't??......

Is it finished with the rule making process? We don’t know and as
Representative Insko said this is somewhat technical and I would agree
with that and that being the case it’s not something that is time
sensitive that we need to take up today and we need to make sure we’ve
got our facts straight on this technical piece here and certainly we
want our folks in North Carolina to be calling the Department of
Insurance in North Carolina versus calling anyone in DC to receive help.
So I would ask that you vote no to this amendment. I mentioned to
Representative Insko yesterday I’d be happy to continue to work with her
on this and make sure that it is addressed in the future but for the
time being please vote no, Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative
Brawley, state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] to speak on the
amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to speak on
the amendment.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentleman it’s not often you
get to stand up and say that some of my friends are for it and some of
my friends are against it and I’m with my friends. But in this case I
agree with representative Insko, we do need to do something. I agree
with Representative Burr we don’t need to do it now. I do urge your
support against the bill. I have requested that a bill be drawn up to
set up a program in the department of insurance to handle the federal
program when it comes out and that’s bill is not time sensitive so it
will be out it will be drafted we will have a chance to debate actually
setting up a program in the department of insurance to handle this
issue. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, state your
purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, to debate the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I really do
appreciate Representative Brawley and Representative Burr in their
acknowledgment of the issue and continuing to work on it and I guess my
respectful disagreement is that I do think there’s sensitivity to this.
Virginia faced, as you know the exact same circumstances the other day
and the Virginia senate and house determining that they wanted to keep
the ongoing power within their commissioner’s staff voted almost
precisely for this amendment to allow it to happen there. As I
understand it because what we’re doing in the bill is changing the
status quo what Representative Insko’s amendment would do would be to
allow the status quo to stay where it is and if in fact it needs to
change as a result of the intent of the rest of the bill then there is
time to do that but in fact these are ongoing powers that are being
restricted to the commissioner and we would be as I understand granted
these powers and now revoked them and I think that’s the more dangerous
scenario than the reverse because all Representative Insko’s bill or
amendment does is allow us to maintain status quo and then to make any
changes that are needed later and so for that reason I support
representative Insko’s amendment . [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative
Moore, State your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if representative
Brawley would yield to a question [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative
Brawley do you yield for a question from your seatmate? [SPEAKER
CHANGES] I do, yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative
Brawley. In your debate a few moments ago the gentleman stated that he
was against this bill. Did the gentleman mean that he was against the
amendment but for the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] My first trip to the
woodshed. Yes sir I urge you to oppose the amendment support the bill.
The amendment itself will be taken care of in a later bill. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Further questions, further debate. If not all those in
favor of the amendment will vote aye all those opposed will vote no. The
clerk will lock the machine. The clerk will lock the machine and record
the vote. Seventy-five having voted in the negative forty in the
affirmative. The amendment failed. Further question further debate on
the bill. If not all those in favor of the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr.
Speaker, we have [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative West wanted to go home
I was trying to speed. Representative Earle, please state your purpose.
Representative Earle.

Sorry, to speak on the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The lady has the floor to speak on the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Mr. speaker and members, ya know I don't often get up on this floor to
speak, but I feel very passionate about this issue that we are dealing
with now. We are only in our second week, and so far you are well on the
way of passing two devastating pieces of legislation. I was kind of
optimistic that we would expand medicaid after the Governor ask that we
slow the process, but then yesterday he gave the go ahead, and so here
we are today. Dealing with this bad, in my opinion, piece of
legislation. Last week you reduced the number of weeks that the
unemployed could draw benefits and also you reduced the amount of money
that could be drawn, so that disqualified us from receiving any federal
benefits for unemployment and this week you are now eliminating the
safety net that many of those same people would normally have to have.
These are your constituents, and I'm sure that all of these people that
would be needing these services are not just in my district, or in some
of my colleagues or some of my democratic districts, these are your
people too that will be suffering from some of the things that are
happening in this house. Another thing I wanted to say was that if you
don't think that it's important enough to expand medicaid because of the
thousands of people that would be included, or because it's the right
thing to do. Ya know, consider the economic impact that it will have on
the state by doing what you're doing.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Mr.speaker?
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
State your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
I would like to ask Representative Earle a question if she'd yield.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative Earle, will you yield?
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
I will not yield. I've got a short, kinda mind frame for ??.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The lady will not yield.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
?? before I, ya know, and then I will yield. The federal government will
provide 100% of the cost for the first three years and 90% after that,
and this would expand the coverage to anybody making less than 138% of
poverty, which is about $16,000. Whether you know it or not, currently
it's only certain segments of our population that will qualify for
medicaid. I don't care how much or how little money you make. That
happens to be the children, the elderly, and the disabled. You hear that
the medicaid costs are going up, sure it's going up because elderly
consume the largest portion of medicaid and it's going to continue to go
up because we're all getting older, the population is aging, so this is
going to continue to happen. I heard yesterday, and I've been hearing,
that the main reason that the Governor decided that we should not expand
medicaid at this time is because of the audit and because of issues with
medicaid. Well, I've been here for a long time and practically ever
since I've been here, whether it's been a democratic or republican
secretary, we have always had to pay money back to the federal
government for one reason or another and I submit to you that we should
be able to chew gum and walk at the same time. I have heard no good
reasons why we should not expand to allow all of these people to come on
board and receive services. We certainly would have a healthier
population. ?? The part that will be the economic factors include the
fact that the medicaid expansion will bring 20 billion

In revenue in the next ten years and provide up to 23,000 jobs. These
the jobs that we need and I am sure that most of you also know that the,
if everybody in this state wanted to work, there is not enough jobs. So
the, this is 23,000 jobs that we desperately need. Other states are
accepting this money. This is our tax money that's going to be going
somewhere else. No, it's not free money, but it's our tax dollars that
are going to be going somewhere else. And we are still going to have to
pay for these same people to get service, and it will be in a more
expensive setting because they are going to go to the, they are going to
present at the emergency room and they are going to get served. And you
and I and others are going to have to end up paying. And I just want to
say that these two pieces of legislation, last week and this week, are
going to do damage to our middle class and to our low income
constituents. And in my opinion, this is an attack on both of these
groups of our constituents. And I submit to you that North Carolina can
do better and should do better. And I would ask you to consider your
constituents before you make this vote. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Earle, would you yield to a question
from the gentleman from Stanly?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll yield.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Earle. As, when I came into
this body, I know, I believe for several years you served as chairman of
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services, and served
in that capacity during years where there were a billion dollar surplus
or more. And if you were so concerned, and are so concerned about this
population, why during those years, when you served as the leader of the
Health and Human Services Appropriation, did you not expand Medicaid to
cover this population? If this is such a critical population that we
should cover.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr, that was not an option when I was
co-chairing Appropriations for Health and Human Services. It was not an
option. And North Carolina, and I am proud to say, has been very
generous with the services, the options that we have provided. And we
have complied with the federal law. And as you well know that it's not
left up to the states to who is eligible. It's a federal law, and you
have to go through the feds for every piece of legislation, or every
change that you make to the Medicaid law. And I'm sure you are aware of
that. And as I said, that was not an option when I was co-chair.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Will the lady yield for another question?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll yield.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Will the lady yield for another question?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I will. One more.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, it is an option, with all due respect,
Representative Earle. Because the state controls the Medicaid plan, yes
the federal government dictates to us what we are permitted to apply or
not, or where we're allowed to go in terms of our Medicaid plan, but you
can apply for a SPA, a State Plan Amendment. And you can apply to modify
Medicaid. And you could have applied at any time during those years
where you were chair, to modify the state plan and to expand to this
population. So you had an opportunity as chairman and you didn't do it
at that time, but now you see fit.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Now what is your question?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you, are you aware that there are SPAs? I mean, I
assume you are aware you can file a SPA since you were a chairman of the
Appropriations Health and Human Services Committee, that can modify the
Medicaid plan.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr, I'm not going to go back and
forth with you as to whether that was an option or not, but I will say
to you that if we, if we had made any of those changes we would have had
to pay for it. This is three years that the federal government will pay
the full cost of this expansion, and after that they will pay 90
percent. That was not an option, and as you well know, Medicaid has
always been a huge budget item. But before this, we did not have the
option to expand Medicaid and not to have to pay anything for three
years. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ross, state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to speak on the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This bill really...

It makes me very sad for the people of North Carolina, for the taxpayers
of North Carolina, and for the employers of North Carolina. First,
we're telling a half-a-million people that they can't be part of a
program that will make sure that they have quality health insurance, and
we're not just telling this to people who haven't contributed, don't
work and don't contribute to taxes, we're telling this largely to
working families, low income working families who are striving to put
food on the table for their kids and pay their rent and simply cannot
afford health insurance, and they're uninsured right now and they are
not able to do the kind of preventative care that we know will prevent
long-term health consequences. These are the same folks who end up in
the emergency room and who end up having uncompensated care, and end up
with judgments and end up really being a burden on our hospitals and on
our medical providers, and ultimately on us for the uncompensated care,
but we don't want to make sure that they're covered and that makes me
very sad. It also makes me sad for the taxpayers of North Carolina
because in fact the taxpayers of North Carolina are paying for the
expansion for Medicaid whether you like it or not. They are paying for
it throughout the United States of America, and by rejecting the
Medicaid expansion money that we have been offered by the Federal
Government, we are basically saying that the taxpayers of North Carolina
are not going to get a return on their investment when they pay their
federal taxes because we're not going to take some of the money back
that they've paid in. We're going to give it to other places like
Arizona that opted in. We're also telling our employers, and I'm going
to go through a whole bunch of different kinds of employers that we're
not going to care about their interests either, and we had a little chat
last week about my reading proclivities and I get the Wall Street
Journal every morning, except for on Sunday when I get the New York
Times, and on Monday the Wall Street Journal reported that employers
that have low wage employees are going to suffer in particular in states
that don't opt into the Medicaid expansion because they are either going
to have to provide insurance to those lower wage employees or they are
going to have to pay a tax of 2,000 dollars per employee. That's the
law. And by not providing this Medicaid expansion for low wage
employees, what you're basically saying to a lot of the small businesses
that haven't been able to provide this insurance is - well you're now
going to have to take on that responsibility or you're going to have to
pay a tax of 2,000 dollars per employee. If you don't believe me, Page
1 of the Wall Street Journal from Monday. This actually has persuaded a
lot of republican legislators and republican governors to go for the
Medicaid expansion. The other group of employers whom I'm very
distraught about who will be suffering because you have chosen not to go
for the Medicaid expansion are our healthcare providers, and you may
have heard from them because I've heard from them. I've heard from
doctors, I've heard from nurses, and I've heard from hospitals. Yes,
these providers would prefer to get money from rich, private insurance
plans that cover absolutely everything at higher rates but their second
choice would be to get it from Medicaid because they know what that
revenue stream looks like. They know they're going to get the money.
They know how to process those claims. It's a guaranteed way of knowing
they are going to get paid. Medicaid and Medicare they know how those
systems work. They can make those work. They can put those into their
budgets. They know how they can provide the healthcare and they want to
know that. Without knowing where that money is going to come from, they
know that this half-a-million

People may be part of their uncompensated care and they’re terrified
about it. Particularly in the rural and n the very highly used urban
areas. This is very, very bad for healthcare jobs in North Carolina and
Representative Earle talked about that. So why are we turning this,
turning this down? Why are we turning it down for the three years that
it’s guaranteed at a hundred percent? I think its fear and loathing.
Fear of something that you don’t control and I understand that but I
think it’s even more than that, loathing of the fact that we have the
Affordable Care Act in the first place. And that is the saddest thing.
To do something just ?? rather than to do the right thing for the people
of North Carolina, the healthcare providers of North Carolina and the
tax payers of North Carolina. I am certainly going to be voting ‘no’ on
this. It is one of the most short-sighted pieces of legislation we have
seen in a long, long time.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative Farmer-Butterfield, state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Send forth an amendment
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The lady has the floor to send forth an amendment. Clerk will read.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative Farmer-Butterfield moves to amend the Bill on page one,
lines five and six by deleting the following.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The lady has the floor to explain her amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you Mr Speaker. As my colleagues do look at page one lines five
and six, my amendment would eliminate three ?? to eject the Affordable
Care Act’s option on Medicaid expansion and it will be replaced with ‘To
expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act’s option of Medicaid
expansion for as long as IV federal funding is available for this
expansion population. Page two; I ask you to look at lines five through
eleven. Section 3 will be eliminated and substituted will be 3a, 3b and
3c. 3a would become effective January 1, 2014 and until IV federal
funding is no longer available for the expansion of the, of the
population. Section 3b provides that the Department of Health and Human
Services would promptly submit a state plan in turns of amendments of
other appropriate actions to put the eligibility changes in place. And
Section 3, the department would be put to the legislative oversight
Health and Human Services committee no later than October 1st, 2013 is
planned for transitioning to the new eligibility levels in 2014. Now I’d
like to tell you why this amendment should be supported. I think my
colleagues have already basically shared that information with you in
terms of Representative Earle and Representative Ross but I want to say
to you that that amendment would allow Medicaid expansion in North
Carolina in a nutshell. It would enable over five thousand residents to
receive health coverage in North Carolina. If you pass this amendment,
Medicaid expansion in our state would save money and that fewer
uninsured people would seek care in emergency rooms at viable healthcare
costs. In fact, I have some waiter here indicating from the staff of the
Department of Health and Human Services that if this amendment is
passed, sixty two million dollars would be generated and savings in
other programs if we decide to expand Medicaid. So I ask that you let us
accumulate this sixty two million and savings from other programs that
would no longer be of need by these individuals. The amendment would
also only cover the first three years. It would not go beyond the first
three years. So we’ll talk on 2014, 15 and 16.

care and he would be that this event, and the ex-king and should also
lays out the eve of its time his extension is mad about the shooting
and, as an inventive 80 times make the decisions about this pass any of
your it said the county as we enter 19 68, and that doesn't have to say
that the advantages as a means of us, stiffened all have the index, but
not enough if and 19 states china's actions made me where hospitals that
the heart after the settlement in the Sunday Express doubts best people
would have reduced access to give your best-of-summer day extension of
the half year, isn't it uses sense of anticipation is narrative chime a
system that ensures that feel Sacramentans of the Indians to the higher
the issue of these is the states to raise the outcomes benefits taxable,
is this guy I'm sure access to the services while people with vision is
the key in the house back to share time situations that have that just
have a times and he said, on- the state's 60 S, Su and implemented that
is OK, and the Israel defense and the Kennedy estate service, and CNN as
a ?? fan, you did not seek medical attention that has been all that,
sometime issued out that the incidence of the fact that she has two
bands have been diagnosed with terminal cancer at a time to have spent
millions less in the engine is seen as supporting this mean time perfect
life to reporters he noted that the one has more speed on them and a few
times chairman of neighbors, as this year either a long as it is another
idea it was a committee yesterday and was a time when seated at a free
market could find some part in a combat off a few years later and
someone can bring their own said something was not as reported in at 97
?? ID supporting the Wal-Mart is unfeasible of his country was the kids'
sake of our time when the accident after that, as it has been the reader
with putting up with free money at Indian and therefore is offering
money that has a city not me, it's time still want this as 40% of the
added cost of additional enrollees in an All-Star scan for the Simpson,
or of the FDIC calls and riled faster than the steel taxpayer money
might exist and wants with pockets and in holiday respect seem of person
Pharmacia that wouldn't ask you to the Chinese are being of the rolling
stones are like that, you've got a lot less able to speak on the phone
and and the record time he's a senior in scenic highway 1:00 on the
matter is unseeded in the amount of foreign exchange students find way
Thailand, he was in my office into a crevasse can expect is about the
psychiatric nurse time gritting his work on the east S : nine and I get
these issues were raised S icon in U.S. its annual percent of all time,
enhance the right eye on the line in the PAC is an ad is in ?? was back
in the Orange County are all the exchange ??....

His medication. And gradually he has deteriorated until now he is
getting more and more violent. The family is talking about turning him
out. Though he would be homeless and psychotic. I think one of the. And
maybe you know maybe a tragedy waiting to happen. One of the things that
keeps me awake at night is how we have treated the mentally ill in this
state. No one asks for mental illness to descend on them and when it
comes it is a tragedy for the whole family. So we have. When we did
mental health reform we intended to put state dollars to pay for people
who weren’t Medicaid eligible. And Representative Earle is exactly
right. Medicaid isn’t for poor people. Medicaid is for certain
categories of poor people, for aged, blind and disabled, pregnant women
and dependent children. If you’re between the ages of 19 and 64, it
doesn’t make any kind of difference how poor you are, you do not qualify
for Medicaid. So a lot of people in our state who have mental illness
don’t have any insurance and nobody’s going provide, they can't buy
their drugs and nobody's going to provide care for them. So, I’ve had
many people call me and tell me. I had one mother call me and tell me
about her son who was in a nursing home and befriended a woman in the
nursing home. The woman befriended him and they became good friends. He
got psychotic and thought he was being attacked by rats. And he thought
that the woman was being attacked by rats. And so he tried to kill the
rats. Unfortunately, he killed the woman, his friend. We don’t have to
have that. This bill, this expansion will cover a lot of those people
who are not covered, the mentally ill right now. We need to do this if
for no other reason than to get that category, those categories, those
mentally ill people who are not qualified for Medicaid now would be.
That’s one of the changes, it goes,it covers everyone. It would finally
cover that group of people, that 19 to 64 year-old, young man and young
woman who doesn’t have any dependent children. It doesn’t make any
difference how poor they are. Now under this law, we could go up to 133%
or 138% of the Federal poverty level, which is not all that much by the
way. If you are a single and you make $15,000 a year on your own, that’s
a 133% of the Federal poverty level. It would be hard to live in
certainly in Orange County and in any place, many places in the state on
that amount of money. A family of three, $25,000, $26,000. So the least
we could do for poor people. This bill is targeted right at our poorest
people in this state. I’m not a native of this state, I’ve lived here
since 1965, and one of the things that I’ve always admired about North
Carolinians was the hard working poor people in this state, they did
never give up. If they don’t have healthcare, and if they have a
healthcare problem, it's not, it’s not their fault, we have an
opportunity to provide that. And let me just mention this business about
cost.No there's no free money. I agree with that. And right now we are
spending the most expensive tax payer dollars that we can right now on
these people. These people get treated. If you have cancer and you
don’t have money, you go to hospital, you get treated. If you break your
back, you to the hospital and you don’t have any insurance, you get
treated, we pay for that. Taxpayers already pay for that. Why aren’t we
using those taxpayer dollars now that we’re pouring into the uninsured
through our hospitals? Hospitals have to provide that care. That bill
was passed during the Reagan administration. If a person goes to the
Emergency Room and they need care, the hospital is required to give it.
So at that time when they put that into place, they also paid hospitals
some of that indigent care money. That indigent care money is going away
because we thought everybody was going to be insured. If we don’t accept
this Medicaid extension, hospitals are going to continue to have to care
for the uninsured at no pay. That is a huge problem. We don’t have to do
that. This is a good bill, a good amendment and I urge you to vote for
it.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative Wilkins, state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speak on the amendment, Mr. Speaker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The gentleman has the floor to speak on the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Miss Speaker, I’m gonna, I’m gonna go astray
for a moment in my remarks, but I promise I’ll come back to the, to the
issue at hand. If you’ll allow me to do so.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The Chair will hold you to your word.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Folks, I’m totally in favor of Representative ??
Butterfield’s amendment. It makes so much sense. It applies to the three
year period

In which we know that the funding is 100% federal, and I know, I've
heard the term 'free money' tossed around here, in this chamber,
actually for the last week or so, but let me go back to transportation
committee for just a moment. Yesterday, and Mr. speaker, here is where I
go a little divergent. We had house bill 10 in front of us, and that's
got to do with the red wrap and the orange wrap, and there was a good
bit of debate about it, and yes the mayor of Garner offered some content
and then someone finally said 'Oh. We need to know from the DOT, Jim ??,
the source of this money from the state.' 'Oh, it's federal.' 'Oh.
Federal money, gee whiz, we oughtta do that.' So we did that, and we
just did that again today and I'm telling you folks it appears to me
that if there is one thread of logic in this chamber it needs to be
applied to this amendment. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative Queen, state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
To speak on the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The gentleman has the floor to speak on the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Fellow members of the house, this amendment takes your bill and takes
the absolute simplest part of it. There is no state money in the first
three years, except we've mentioned a little administrative cost, which
we had some discussion of there's set asides that would take care of
that and more, that this bill would provide, but this is really hard to
believe. That we would take our situation in this state as we're trying
to recover from the great recession, take a job's bill. This is about
health, about health care, and the health care economy. There's 23,000
jobs at stake, that's the healthcare providers that will provide the
health care to these 500,000 citizens. Half a million citizens! That's
10,000 members in my district! I can tell you, I live in the mountains
of North Carolina and health care is expensive and difficult for working
families with low incomes, hard working families not making high
incomes, making very modest incomes in the mountains of North Carolina.
They cannot afford healthcare, they just do without, but it's expensive
for them to do without. We've heard the cost of not providing mental
health. I was on the ?? oversight and on the dropout prevention task
force that North Carolina worked very hard on while I was in the senate
at my last session, and the number two cause for young people dropping
out of high school was an untreated mental health of a family member. It
could've been a parent, them, or a sibling, but when you have untreated
mental health in a household that household is interrupted. This is just
such a smart, helpful bill for the very people that need it the most.
It's not free money, it's our share. Our share, North Carolina's share
of a federal law and a federal budget. Just to deny that, the only
state, I understand, in the 50 planning to do this at this time, is just
beyond comprehension to me. What are you thinking? That you don't have
these 10,000 citizens without healthcare, that can't afford it in your
district, that this would help? That's 4400 jobs. 400 jobs in my three
counties, in western North Carolina in health care and I can tell ya,
the billion dollars that cut out of medicaid last session cost my three
counties about 200 health care

Jobs. And the sick didn't get well, they just got their healthcare cut.
So this is another case of ignoring the real needs of our people. I'm
not sure why, I talked to each of you in the halls and socially and you
make sense and you seem to be compassionate, reasonable people, this is
not reasonable folks, this is not reasonable. So I ask you to consider
this amendment. Take the first three years with no additional costs at
the state. Try it and see if it doesn't make a real economic sense,
create real jobs and help solve the real problems of the people of this
state. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Upon the motion of the members from Cabarrus,
Representative Johnson and Pittman, the chair is happy to extend the
courtesies of the gallery to [??] chairwoman of the Cabarrus county
republican women.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cunningham state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the amendment Mr. Chair.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to speak to the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] What I would say to you all, my colleagues and members
of the chamber, if a parent works and has a child with a mental illness
or developmental disability, they cannot get Medicaid coverage if it's
based off of the parents income. They don't qualify if it goes beyond
that $60,000 dollars. Mental illness is generally only covered 50%
anyway on any insurance plan in the state of North Carolina most of the
time. That is why the preexisting condition was so relative to the
mental health industry, hospitals that provide that care and services,
because families actually can be bankrupt through one incident of having
to be hospitalized in a mental institution. I'm talking $30,000 for one
incident. And that's why it was so relative about covering preexisting
conditions.
Now if you're looking at the three years for the amendment, it is a good
option because you can put representative care there to take care of
people that are in very very poor health, and then on the backside they
are healthier because you are not dealing with long-term chronic illness
that have gotten very very bad over time for no treatment. So they will
end up in your hospitals, six maybe 14 days for a $100,000 dollars per
incident, whereas if we had covered them from the beginning maybe we
could get it down, hey stay three days and $10,000 to cost. So the
amendment is a good amendment, I hope that you all would please consider
it. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to speak on the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. And it's really simple, we've
talked about a ,lot of numbers here today but it really is pretty
simple. This is the tax payers money, the tax payers of North Carolina.
And they since we've been here have been asking one question, and that
is, are you gonna create some jobs for us? Are you gonna create an
opportunity for jobs for us? Well, this bill creates 23,000 jobs, this
amendment, 23,000 jobs that will be funded from the results of the
500,000 people who will receive this care.
Now, two questions are asked. 23,000 jobs, where will they go? And what
kind of jobs are they? Well lets talk about the healthcare jobs first.
3,700 doctors, 2,000 technologists, 1,200 health aides, 1400 support
workers, 2,200 secretaries, 300 stem workers, 800 construction workers,
1300 drivers, 1100 retail sales people, 1100 business and finance
workers, 700 cooks, 500 maintenance workers. Well then where are these
jobs gonna be? They sound like they're all gonna be in the communities.
They're gonna be in these communities where these 500,000 new people as
well as those who are getting service now, where they live. Well where
are those communities? They're your communities.

These jobs are the jobs that will be in your communities. Many of you
have the poorest districts. I’m lucky enough that I don’t represent one
of the poorest districts. But many of you have districts that are mired
in poverty, that don’t have healthcare, don’t have infrastructure, don’t
have jobs. This is an opportunity. Three year period, what does that do?
This is the greatest jobs program, at least during this session, that
we’ve come up with. The federal government is going to provide the
funding back to us that we put in so we can create these 23,000 jobs.
We’re going to train people, we’re going to employ them, we’re going to
give them work ethic, we’re going to have revenue flowing through our
communities to our small businesses and at the same time we’re going to
have 500,000 more people treated who will have their health care
evaluated will have their conditions determined and we will have a three
year period to try to address them. Now surely, surely we will take
advantage of 25,000 jobs and our opportunity to get people trained and
put back to work. The opportunity to have 500,000 more North Carolinians
covered by insurance and get health care treatment so they can identify
any problems they have, then we have time to address them. Surely we can
do that. Now, we’ve heard over and over, well, we’ll consider it later.
This opportunity goes away, number one, so you don’t have ‘til later to
get these 25,000 jobs and to help these 500,000 North Carolinians,
number one. And number two, doesn’t it go against what you said? That
you don’t want to kick the can down the road? You can make this decision
right now, do the right thing, for the right reason that makes financial
sense with regards to taxpayers that gives them a return on their
investment and invest in jobs. This is the biggest jobs bill you’re
going to have. This is it. There is no excuse for us not doing it today,
not doing it right now, so I ask you to support the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative Glazier, state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
To briefly speak to the amendment, Mr. Speaker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The gentleman from Cumberland has the floor to speak on the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I don’t denigrate the difficult
decisions that are involved on the discussion of the exchanges, but let
me state my reasons for why I think this amendment is a really good
amendment that takes us independent of that and why it’s so needed.
First, to the extent that there are really issues in the Medicaid
system, and there are, and I think they’re going to be addressed. There
are also incredibly good things in that system that serve millions of
folks across the country and hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians.
But I am reminded and as a lawyer that I should sort of stick with the
area that I know and understand what I don’t know and what I don’t know
fills this room on this issue. I’m persuaded first by the letters from
the North Carolina Medical Society, the North Carolina Hospital
Association, the letter from the North Carolina Association of Health
Underwriter among many, many groups. Nearly every medical group, that
has suggested pausing and reflecting and taking time on both of these
decisions because of the intense ramifications. I am also a member of
the Cumberland delegation and those in Cumberland can speak as many in
the rural hospital setting. Our hospital is not, although some portions
of it, side hospitals are, is an urban setting, but it has the highest
Medicaid rate of payments of any urban hospitals in the state. It
suffers greatly if this money does not come through. I listen to the
hospital association folks and what can happen. I received a note that’s
a reminder of the community health centers. Medicaid expansion is
crucial for them because over 52% of the patients served in North
Carolina health centers are uninsured and 75% have incomes below 100% of
the federal poverty level. In the end, for me, the reason why I think
this is so crucial, is just what Representative Hall alluded to. We
don’t get a do over here. For these patients, for right now, for this
year, the 500,000 that won’t have services, it’s small consolation that
we’ll consider it in a year. They may well be dead in a year. They
certainly will be more injured and less healthy in a year. And in our
state, since this Medicaid funds is for aged, blind, and disabled, it’s
helpful, I think, to return to the data. The aging population of our
state...

have nearly 1 million people aged 65 and over, and in 10 years, it will
be over 2 million. And the disabled population continues to grow. So
the people we denied the coverage, as a result of what we do today, of
the people who are 65 and older, they have Multiple Sclerosis, and the
victims of Alzheimer's, and in my district, traumatic brain injured vets
who are now disabled, an those who have Downs Syndrome difficulties, and
those who are Cerebral Palsy victims, those are the faces of the people
we are denying coverage today. And I can't right now think of an
economically, or morally defensive reason to do that. So, for that
reason I'm going to be voting very much for the Farmer-Butterfield
amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Dollar, state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]To speak to the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman from Wake has the floor to speak on the
amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the House. Look, if
you think this is a wonderful piece of legislation, you think this is a
terrible piece of legislation, this amendment is just absolutely awful.
I don't know that I've seen in some time, we saw the same amendment
yesterday in committee, I don't know if I've seen an amendment on this
floor that makes less sense. You telling me that, okay, we're going to
take over 500,000 people, we're going to take all the expense of
bringing you into the Medicaid system, and let me assure you that when
you take a look at line item 23, excuse me, I believe it's 24, and onto
25 where it says 'full federal funding', look folks, it's going to cost
us money. But lay that thought aside for a moment. It's going to cost
us money. It's no 100%, I don't care what the newspapers say, and what
the rhetoric is, it's not 100%, but set that aside. You're going to
bring 500,000 people on, you're going to get them in a medical home,
you're going to go through all of that trouble, you're going to start
some of them on treatment, and then you're going to come back 3 years
later when you know, when you already know that the federal government
is not going to pay 100%. They've already said it, it's in Obamacare
now, and you're going to remove those people? That makes absolutely no
sense. It makes no sense financially, it makes no sense from a care
perspective. I can't believe that the amendment is offered. I mean, I
think it's one argument to say, okay I believe we should expand,
somebody else believes you shouldn't expand. Alright, that's a logical
argument in there, but this, I mean to me, this amendment probably
matches some of the concerns I have with Obamacare or the Affordable
Care Act as a whole. There is just a lot of promises that down the road
there is no answer for. And I would urge you to vote against this
amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Collins, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]To speak briefly on the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman has the floor to speak on the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]You know, when I consider taking all this money that
the federal government is offering us to expand Medicaid, the 1st
question I ask myself is, where is this money coming from? Now I've
heard it stated, Well, it's coming from the tax payers. Well, I hate to
tell you, but it's really not. You know, I admire people as
Representative Ross that read things as detailed as the Wall Street
Journal, buy if you don't read anything any more detailed than the USA
Today, everybody know that the US Government is borrowing $0.40 of every
$1.00 it spends, so the tax payer money runs out at $0.60, and then the
borrowing starts, for what we're already doing. So where is the money
going to come from to expand the spending? It's going to all come from
borrowing. Now who are we borrowing it from? Well, the Chinese and the
Japanese, right? No, they've slowed down on their borrowing. Now, most
of it's coming from the Federal Reserve. They're buying our Treasury
Bonds by electronically creating money. It's what they call
Quantitative Easing, we've had 3 rounds of it already to supposedly
stimulate our economy. This is right next to playing with Monopoly
money folks, if you understand the economy. What it does is devalue the
dollar. And there is no more insidious and no more horrible tax on the
poor than devaluing the dollar. Why do you think the cost of gasoline
right now is 90% higher than when President Obama was first installed in
office? And it's not all his fault, because

part of that was George Bush in the first stimulus program. Gas was
$1.86 a gallon. I don't know what you're buying it for now, but today I
bought some at $3.52, that's a 90% increase. It's because we have
devalued the dollar by making this funny money. Every economist knows
that we cannot sustain the program we're on. We cannot do it. You know
the only thing economists are arguing about today? Whether we've already
gone so far that we're over the cliff, or whether we're like a bunch of
lemmings heading toward the cliff and haven't quite got to the end yet.
Now that's serious business to me, I don't know about you but it is to
me. I've told people over and over again that the thing that motivated
me to run for this office back in 2010 when people kept asking me that I
need my head examined for running at such a horrible time is, every time
I take a vote I think about my grandchildren. I've got grandchildren
from freshmen at UNCW to a 1-year-old down in Huntsville, Alabama, and I
think about their future. Because I don't want to leave them in a second
or third world country, where they're not going to be able to afford to
turn on air conditioning in the summer or heat in the winter or put gas
in the car if they even have one. But that's what we're headed towards,
folks. Now, you can stick your head in the sand and act like we're not,
but that's exactly what we're heading towards, if we continue down the
path we're on. We're not but just a few years behind Greece in borrowing
up our GDP. I don't know about you, but to me the most short-sighted
thing we can do is continue to aid and abet our Federal government in
spending money we don't have. I'll tell you who's paying for this. I'll
tell you where this money's coming from. It's coming from your children
and grandchildren, if you have any, and it's coming from mine. That's
who this money's coming from. If you're willing to forfeit their future
for current benefits for people, then go right ahead and vote on this.
that's exactly, exactly what we're doing. You know, I've heard the
argument, "Well, every other state's going to do it." Well, I
was raised as a child, by two parents. And I had three children that I
helped raise. And you know, one excuse that never cut it with my parents
and one excuse that never cut it with me? I bet it didn't cut it with
yours either. "Well, everybody else is doing it. So let's do
it." I'm not going to aid and abet our--I criticize our Federal
government all the time for profligate spending and irresponsible
behavior and not having the guts to stand up and say no. And I'm
certainly not going to contribute to that. So I'm going to vote against
this amendment for the bill. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, for what purpose do you rise?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to speak on the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] It's getting to a point where things are--folks are
paying attention and some are not. Let me tell you something. You know
what you're going to do. You're going to pass this thing just like it
is. But it's not going to get passed by you without a fight from us. So,
you just as well face it and you can ring up any way you want to go. Let
me tell you about it, you're talking about tax payers paying for this.
They're going to pay for it anyway. Because if you pass it, these folks,
half a million folks--one-half million folks--are going to the emergency
room and you're going to have to pay for it. And you took away from the
university system last year funds for indigent care. You took that away.
Now, that's where the tax money is going to go. You're going to pay it,
because these folks are going to get indigent care, I don't care what
happens.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I will not yield.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The very thing that you all are arguing for and
arguing about, and I don't mean any disrespect to Mr. Blust, but I'm not
going to interrupt this point right now. You've talked about jobs. You
haven't created a job in two years that you've been here. You've got
23,000 jobs sitting out here on the line right now. You're not doing
anything to create jobs. You've got--let me give you one figure. The
figure 9.2. That's what the unemployment figure is for this state. The
fifth highest in the country. It was 9.2 last year, it's 9.2 now. What's
it going to be next year at this time? If you don't do something to
create some jobs? Secondly, if you don't want a healthy population, just
go ahead and say it and go ahead on and vote for the bill and against
the amendment. Because what you're doing is creating an unhealthy
population. Now, the third thing, we are here, folks, to do a service to
our constituents. You are elected, not to make a profit. You are here to
look out for people, whatever their station is--poor, rich.

Anywhere you wanna go. We are here to provide a service to the people
that sent us here. You have not provided any service for the people who
sent you here. So fine, you know what you going to do, you gonna go and
lockstep. We gonna go lockstep and we gonna see what happens later on
down the road. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Szoka, please state your
purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]
The lady is recognized a second time to speak on the amendment. Thank
you Mr. Speaker. So there’s really no reason to do this for three years.
Crazy idea according to the New England Journal of Medicine Medicaid
expansion of five hundred enrollees could save 2840 people from dying
every year. So over a period of three years we could actually save nine
thousand people. We could save nine thousand lives. If that’s all we did
and I know in addition to that we could save some mentally ill people
who are going to die during that time. This is a good amendment. Vote
for the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate
on the amendment. If not the question before the House is the amendment
sent forward by Representative Farmer-Butterfield. All those in favor
will vote aye all those opposed will vote no. The clerk will lock the
machine and record the vote. Open the machine. I’m new at this position.
Now you lock the machine and record the vote. Seventy-three having voted
in the negative forty-two in the affirmative the amendment fails.
Further discussion further debate on the bill? Representative Insko is
recognized. Representative Baskerville is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER
CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor
to debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. As we all
know the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. There will be a
healthcare exchange established. This current bill what it does is give
complete authority to the federal government to establish implement
control govern our North Carolina State health exchange. This is the
same federal government that was maligned on the floor earlier. This is
the same Federal government that has been discredited on the floor with
numerous remarks throughout this particular session. Why as a body would
we abdicate our authority to govern our own state health exchange to the
federal government if they’re so bad? If they can’t do anything right?
That’s what this bill does. We can control our own destiny in terms of
where we go with this state health care exchange program which once
again is the law of the land. We want to show the federal government
who’s the master, who’s in charge when it comes to transportation
projects and road building but we are willing to give up the driver’s
seat when it comes to expanding health care coverage for five hundred
thousand citizens in North Carolina. Now, twenty-three thousand jobs,
this is not just some figure that we are pulling out of the air. This is
a study done by Duke University fiscal analysis on the implications of
this particular Medicaid expansion. More people insured drives up the
demand for folks that are trained in the healthcare industry. That’s
what the Medicaid expansion does. Now there were some question about
what do we do after three years when the federal government is not gonna
give one hundred percent of the funding? Well, what happens cannot
possibly be any worse than what’s going on right now where we have half
a million uninsured folks that are going to the hospitals going to the
emergency room receiving care in the most inefficient and the most
expensive way possible to deliver that care. What

This Medicaid expansion would do and as detailed in my colleague Jenny
?? Butterfield’s amendment that if we expand the coverage that means
less folks are going to need Medicaid coverage because of the multiplier
effect of the job creation component of this bill, the 23 thousand jobs,
less folks are going to be eligible to receive the Medicaid coverage.
Not only that the folks that are receiving Medicaid coverage their costs
are going to be less expensive because they have access to preventive
care, they have access to routine check-ups, they’re not going to
receive that sort of care from the emergency room so our costs are lower
that way as well. When do we do anything that’s perfect in this body?
Nothing that we do is going to be perfect but I just ask all of my
colleagues, let’s not let the good, let’s not let perfect be an enemy of
the good. I ask that you vote against this bill. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tine state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] To offer an amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to offer an amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mister Speaker. I beg your
indulgence.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will read.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tine moves to amend the bill on page
one on live 5 by deleting the word ‘and’.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to explain his amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. I realize that the evening is
wearing on today but in deference to the speakers Valentine’s Day plans
I figured I would better offer it today than tomorrow so I beg your
indulgence. As we’ve talked I’m not a big federal government person
myself, I’m not a borrow to get it done person at the federal government
level but sometimes as we discussed in the previous bill the federal
government puts us in a box that we don’t want to be in and we’ve got to
figure out what to do with and in this case we do have a very real
problem with our hospitals who with the Medicaid expansion we’re
expecting some funding to make up for those that would have to write
off. The federal government said we don’t need to give you these
indigent care payments because now you’re going to receive Medicaid
expanded payments. So some of our hospitals, especially our rural ones
that operate on a very razor thin budget are going to have a problem to
continue over these next few years. So basically what this amendment
does is two things, it says that the state’s going to step in and make
sure that we make the hospitals whole and its going to do that by
establishing a commission of eight members, four from the House, four
from the Senate , that would take in all the adjustments ‘cause we know
that the federal governments going to continue to make adjustments to
this bill and then come in for the short session and explain how we’re
going to pay for that funding and also how that funding would be
dispersed and exactly how much funding would be needed. Right now,
today, we’re looking at 7.8 billion dollars that our hospitals would
lose over the next ten years. 5.6 of that came from the ACA and another
2.2 came from when they passed the fiscal cliff legislation. So I
commend this amendment to you. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr why do you rise?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to speak on the
amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mister Chairman. Members I would ask that
you would vote against this amendment. This is another case where we
simply don’t know at this time what’s going to happen with a lot of
these funds. ?? funds and those types of things and Representative
mentioned the box that we’ve been put in, well with all due respect the
hospital association helped build that box. You know they agreed to a
lot of these things that have taken place through the Affordable Care
Act. They signed off on them and endorsed them and now because they’re
getting the bad end of the deal they want the state to come in and save
them and it is not the responsibility of the taxpayers of the state of
North Carolina to do that. If they have a problem with the way that the
federal government is funding something they need to go appeal to the
federal government. If we start trying to offset reductions that are
made by the federal government for this that and the other to Medicare,
to Medicaid, which is a, well Medicare is the one that they’re trying to
offset with a lot of these which isn’t even a state program but it is
simply not the responsibility of the state and I would respectfully ask
members to oppose this amendment at this time. Thank you.

...Moore, why do you rise?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask to correct a vote please.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. On amendment 82 I ask to be recorded as a
no vote.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as a no vote. And also
Representative Arp will be recorded as a no vote.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Representative Dollar why do you rise?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I rise to see if Mr. Tine would, Representative Tine
would yield for a question.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield for a question?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tine, the figures that you quoted, the
$5.6 billion, it is accurate to say that that figure, that $5.6 billion
over several years is in fact from federal cuts to the Medicare program,
the federal Medicare program, that would otherwise be coming to senior
citizens in North Carolina. Is that correct?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The cuts are from, my understanding is that it's the
Medicare money that the cuts are being put because they understood that
the Medicaid expansion would then make up for some of the write-offs
that the hospitals would have to pay so it wasn't needed from one and
they put it in the other box. And so therefore, this expansion would
take care of that and the expectation was that the state would receive
the funding to be able to take care of it.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Would the gentleman from Wake like to propound another
question? Representative Tine?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I love the way you worded it.
[laughter]
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll write it down for you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] One follow up. So then it is accurate to say that what
the federal government is doing to the senior citizens in North
Carolina, to the tune of $5.6 billion, is taking money from health care
for senior citizens to give it to a younger population in Medicaid
because the expansion, as you mentioned a moment ago, as everybody
knows, is going to apply to younger, single adults. People who are not
senior citizens. So we're taking from senior citizens and we're giving
to a younger population. Is that not correct?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I could see how you could make that argument. My
understanding it's more about the process of the write-offs in regards
to those that have--are receiving care when they show up to the hospital
they have to serve them one way or the other. So my understanding was
that pot of money for the indigent care was based partially off of the
write-offs and therefore it's more a function of people showing up that
don't have the coverage.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for answering the
question and confirming.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Are there any further questions and debate regarding
the amendment on the floor? On the amendment?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Mobley, why do you rise?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to speak on the amendment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The email that I want to share
with you wanted to go to committee yesterday, however I was not at the
committee. But it addresses this particular amendment and it comes from
a hospital administrator in Ahoskie. And she states, "Please know
how devastating passage of SB 4 would be to the North Carolina hospitals
and specifically Vidant Roanoke-Chowan Hospital. Number one, state wide,
the ACA is slated to cut $5.6 billion in Medicare reimbursements and an
additional $2.2 billion in other cuts. That $7.8 billion under the next
ten years was intended to be offset by the Medicaid expansion. Number
two, our hospital already care for the uninsured and government insured
patients at a loss. In 2011 our hospitals spent $1.6 billion in the
charity care and debt, or bad debt..."

Speaker: they lost 870 million on medicare and 506 million on medicare
patients ?? one hospital we have projected that the negative impact of
the medicare patient reduction as a result of A C A 10year impact 28
million in 19 I'm sorry in 2013 500800 in 2014 770800 regardless of the
decision to expand we would continue to help for the patients in our
hospital too an extent what would legislation alternative be to preserve
hospital payments if medicare is not expanded if ask that we vote for
the amendment because my particular area was one of the poor area
addressed about earlier the fifth district that i serve consists of 5
counters 4 old counters and one partial counters those counters has been
perfect counter who are live in resort posher county ,gates county and
?? so behalf of those 8000 citizens that i represent please vote for
this amendment thank you,
Speaker Changes: Representative ?? state your purpose,
Speaker Changes: to speak to the amendment please,
Speaker Changes: the lady has the floor to speak on the amendment,
Speaker Changes: i provisionally wanted to tell couple of things but i
want to address i believe that Representative dollar was asking a
question ?? about medicare cuts and these are really going to cut
medicare for the elderly so much as they are going to cut ?? to our
physicians and hospitals basically when a physician takes medicare
patients he accepts the payment and same s the hospital but it's not
gonna cut for the elderly because the medicare money is gonna cut to the
?? for our physicians and hospitals my just consider two hospital one is
?? that is considered as one of the critical hospitals and one is
Sanford these cuts will result in 35 or right at 36 million dollars in
cuts that is chosen in moral hospitals the one is that city that is
considered as critical hospital already is operation at a deficit you
can see both these hospitals few years ago and aware so many in my town
are part of the county last recent insurance and ?? they don't have the
?? right now so they are having the help right now through U N C this
passes they are not sure that they able to stay open now that's only
hospital in Adam county of the people n North Chadwick has access of
large county and we don't have another hospital nearby here at the
hospital in Sanford they also will take significant hits from this the
amendment medicare expansion was intended to help offset these expansion
to rule these hospitals and these small medical practices my hope was
been a so low practice ?? and i' user this morning we barely making it
right now as a practice the ?? everything is so controlled doesn't
matter what you rate changes as a relevant you get reimbursed in
medicare you get reimbursed what is the insured are or the medicare or
the medicare's is gonna get reimbursed is very frustrating g to watch
his volume of production to stay the same in every year what is
collectible what has to be written of in the management care goes up
things like these are cuts in medicare's because these practices is
about 30% medicare this consequent is gonna hit practice ?? still see
those patients as what long as we can but,

Bromley is your small-town doctors. they cannot continue to function
with the and that nothing in the Medicaid to offset that I ICS, rising
up and going to work in a hospital from where it hit one inch on County
because there's no way to avoid those kinds attached in a small fact or
small role hospital without that offsetting income from the Medicaid
expansion, though we may as well coated. now this is to happen we know
it can happen. we know that it's a rare we don't have a plan they know
what would I tell all of our citizens, we lose all our role healthcare.
we don't have doctors accept in our urban areas working in major medical
centers. I don't know what you can tell your constituents nominated
against it. but where the amendment against the bill. I do support in
record shops shopper
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speicher purposely this is the amendment only will remember I'm really
awake that Waddell 's major purpose of developmental bill has the floor
to speak on the amend of this German and lazy gentlemen,
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
I'll not only long-winded by this police right to the point of the
season away. I have all related times as I thought them up as an
alternative to fund in rural hospitals on from a rural county, just like
Clinton MacManus is from a rural county and I call my hospital
administrator and rule Columbus County, which by the way I'm not him one
hundred out of one hundred counties in North help help the county in the
state, hospital administrator to ask him how it was not affect that row
hospital and he came back like most of you got back information display
in that we are going to be losing forty four million dollars over two
years which math is not together. that's about four million dollars year
that were not related edit that hospitals don't be listen because it
will have to address that Detroit is in its place. it's anyway right now
they're going to the emergency room. we all know the emergency room when
they don't need to go to the emergency room of being a farmer and a
former educator, I don't know a lot about healthcare, but I'm learning a
lot in here about help here when I'm walking talks about healthcare. I
know it is the case with a skull since a much and I do agree with the
fact that you know there's no free money we don't get free money we send
our money. often we expect to get the best return five hour week that
a few shares ago and I know you know the Democrats are probably in
charge at that time the gat ors got been my arable small town council
member fault seemed like forever and jabber, and when you have a
situation where we lost money from the inventory tax, and that money was
not only have budgets and will not get a hold harmless money and I'm
sure how well this money will come up again of and that was to replace
that money that was lost by the inventory tax rebate and it we were
given enough time to try to find other revenue streams, but in the
meantime, we allowed your lab that money back into our but him a small
fountain. do that and that's exactly what this on them doesn't give time
to find out how we're going replace that money to those hospitals of the
country devices and layout of a know I'll tell too much on those that
they own, but I do urge you to support his wife Brandon Baker for any
public by discussion regarding the amendment, if not question before the
house is remember sent all the resident Chad, although some favorable
vote of all those opposable one of Oracle open number chain record what

[Speaker Changes] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.
73 voting the negative, 38 in the affirmative. The amendment fails. Are
there further debate and discussion on the bill? As an aside, we’re
gonna be here tomorrow also. Representative Jones, state your purpose.
[Speaker Changes] To debate the bill.
[Speaker Changes] The gentlemen from Rockingham has the floor to debate
the bill.
[Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I know the hour is getting
later and we’ve been listening most of the last two hours to the
opposing sides, so I wanna rise and support of the House Committee
Substitute to Senate Bill 4. And I do so for several reasons. Mr
Speaker, we were told by the opposition in committee yesterday that we
should simply ignore the fiscal situation of the federal government when
making this decision. And furthermore we were told that we should ignore
the recent state audit about medicaid, in other words, business as
usual, as so many of our government decisions seem to be made that have
created this fiscal mess. So those were the proposed ground rules so
that the left could drive the argument on their own terms, mainly that
we have problems and that those problems need to be solved by more
government control, more government intrusion, and more taxpayer money.
Or better said by Representative Collins, more borrowed money. But Mr.
Speaker, I cannot and I will not ignore the reality that these promises
are not made on a solid foundation they are made on sinking sand and it
reminds me of building a house, you can paint is pretty, you can cover
it up, ??, you can make it look good, you can fill it with all sorts of
nice amenities, but if you build that house without a proper, suitable,
foundation, it will indeed fail in the end. And so Mr. Speaker, when the
Federal Government promises to pay for this, only in the early years, by
the way, there are those that will be swept up with this recurring dream
that is often pro ported, that the Federal money is like manna from
Heaven, its just a free gift and we need to get in on it. Furthermore,
this is all integrated into that twenty seven hundred page Federal
Healthcare act, I’ll call it the Federal Healthcare Act. I know some
prefer the term, affordable Health Care Act, but it’s certainly not
Affordable. Some in the media, and some call it Obama Care, but I wont
say that. The President says he likes this term, but some here have
stated here in the past that they don’t so, I’ll refer to the Federal
Healthcare Act. But Mr. Speaker, you just can’t consider the branches of
a tree without considering the entire tree, this is the law that totally
reforms our healthcare system and roughly 1/6th of the economy of the
United States. This is the law that the speaker of the house, Nancy
Pelouski said at the time, we have to pass it to find out what is in it.
This is the law that many that voted for it continue to admit that they
never read and couldn’t understand even if they did read it. And this is
the law that the more people know about the details, the more popular it
becomes. And as Representative Burr and others have stated, that even
those that wanted to get in on the deal early on, the more they find out
about it now, the more they find they don’t like it. So to those that
say I’ve got to find a way to answer my constituents, I would say,
welcome to Obama care. We didn’t give it to you, we’re gonna do
everything we can to oppose it. And some of those pieces, like the ones
that we’re debating today, can be polished up to look pretty good if we
consider them in a vacuum, like our opponents would have us to do. If we
put on our blinders, as some would suggest, if we don’t consider any of
the context or ramifications, such as the cost, the affordability or
even worse, more loss of liberty and freedoms to make choices
independently of the Federal Government forcing their options down our
throats. But Mr. Speaker, in a nutshell, here is part of the scheme that
some would have us to buy into. These healthcare exchanges are not the
marketplaces that some would claim them to be. They are Federal takeover
centers. They are a tool for the Federal government to control health
plans and benefits and to oversee patient care. These exchanges would
become single cellular beaurocracies, where only government approved
health plans are sold, and no real free market exists. It is expected
that all people in the future would be...

...expanding it. And that not only goes to the flawed Medicaid program,
but it goes to the system in general that is threatening our very
survival as a nation. Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this ill-fated
health care system, including these elements on the table today, wish to
treat our state and these Representatives like pigs at a trough. Or, a
better analogy might be "rats on a sinking ship, fighting over what
food is left." The people of North Carolina did not send this
majority here to govern according to such a mentality. It cannot be
business as usual to build bigger government under a more crushing debt.
We will not ignore the costs, we will not be seduced by the promises.
This ship is not sunk yet, and we can and we must continue striving to
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Not with
bigger government programs funded by borrowing more trillions of
dollars, passing on to our children and future generations a debt they
can never repay, but by making the tough choices to just say no; to wean
ourselves from all the promises from the federal government and all the
strings that are attached that go with these federal dollars that are
not manna from Heaven, but are crushing our citizens and our future. Mr.
Speaker, I join with my colleagues that are asking for your support to
vote for the House Committee substitute for Senate Bill 4. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The pages are dismissed for the day, thank you for your services, and we
hope to see you tomorrow. Upon the motion of the Member from Lee and
Harnett Counties, Representative Mike Stone, the Chair is happy to
extend the courtesy to the gallery: to Jennifer Stone, wife of
Representative Stone.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
What purpose of Representative Adams?
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
To speak on the bill, please.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The Lady has the floor to speak on the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, around here,
we kind of do what we want to do. I heard someone say that we don't
usually do what other people do, but I would remind you that last week
we made the decision to make the cuts for unemployment benefits, based
on some of the discussions that came up around what other states were
doing. Having said that, I want to move on and just say that
Representative Alexander continues to quote the 16th president, and I
have some wonderful quotes about him; but since we have, just a little
while ago, applauded the NAACP and its work around injustices and so
forth, I'm going to quote Martin Luther King, Jr., who often spoke about
injustices and reminded us that "An injustice anywhere is a threat
to justice everywhere." But what you might not know is that he also
had some concerns around disparities in health, and he boldly declared
that "Injustice in health is the most shocking, and the most
inhumane in equality." To have roughly 1 in 5 Americans uninsured
is a drain on the American workforce, and it's a drain on the American
economy as well. The Medicaid expansion directly addresses this problem
by extending coverage to nearly 17 million Americans, more than half a
million of those live on our state. This bill proposes to opt North
Carolina out of the Medicaid expansion that will extend coverage and
provide health insurance to millions of people in our state who, right
now, are without coverage. And so I'm speaking, and asking for some
compassion for them. For so many poor people in this state in
poverty---many without ANY insurance coverage---to reject this support
for people who otherwise would have NO other health is shameful. It's
insensitive and it continues to show a lack of compassion for the least
among us. We continue to be faced with disparities of all kinds in our
state, and in our nation, and allowing North Carolina to expand Medicaid
would greatly reduce the disparity between people of color and whites;
and it would simultaneously reduce the uninsured rate for all North
Carolinians. Disparities are real, and they're harmful---
[END OF AUDIO]

As Martin Luther King declared, not only to communities of color but to
every community in our state and our nation, we all suffer as a result.
The percentage of African Americans, Latinos and other persons of color
who do not have health insurance is higher than the percentage of
uninsured whites. The uninsured rate for African Americans is 7.7%
higher than whites, and the uninsured rate for Latinos is 19.4% higher.
Disparities and inequities will continue to plague us if we aren’t
willing to reach out and help those who cannot help themselves, and I’m
a bit distressed that apparently we are still a nation and a state of
the haves and the have-nots, and it should be unacceptable to us that
healthcare is not accessible or affordable for everybody and reserved
only for a privileged few. This bill further damages people who are
already hurting, no alternatives and no other place to turn, and it puts
a special burden on poor families on our state. With 25.6% of North
Carolina’s children living in poverty, 30% of North Carolina’s children
of color living in poverty, 44% of African American children living in
poverty and only 71.7% of African Americans with health insurance, it’s
hard to imagine – it’s hard to imagine – that this body in good
conscience can vote to deny coverage to our citizens simply because they
are poor. Again, we need to look at who is impacted, and if we look at
that, it’s clear that the large majority on individuals who will be
impacted are the poor people in our state, many of them already at the
bottom, struggling without any access and no way to get medical
attention that they need, and many of those families we pulled the rug
out of last week, as Representative Earle had mentioned – reduced their
unemployment coverage and any emergency support that they could get, and
many of the families who need health insurance lost the coverage that
they had when they lost their jobs. I’m concerned as well that among the
disparities are women, who are the majority of our state’s population.
Our state ranks 37th out of all of the states for women’s access to
healthcare services, and Medicaid expansion would improve the health of
women in North Carolina. It would reduce gender disparities in health by
providing more women access to preventive care, comprehensive medical
care and reproductive healthcare, which is probably a problem for some
folk in here. But every county in our state have poor people living in
them. They’re not all Democrats. Citizens all over this state will be
hurt, and like most of you, my county of Guilford will be greatly
impacted and many of our citizens, like yours, will suffer. Several
providers have contacted me, like HealthServe, consisting of six county
Guilford County safety medical practices, that provide primary specialty
healthcare to over 37 thousand children and 14 thousand adults, all of
whom have annual incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level. Now
that’s less than $15,000 per year. You see, children live in poverty
because their parents live in poverty, and the large majority of the
poor people in my county and probably yours too are children, but we
cannot help our children without helping their parents, who this
expansion would help. So I’m convinced that if this expansion for these
citizens does not occur, then the retraction of services will occur. The
patients served by many of the providers in my county are the invisible
and voiceless, so I’m appealing to my colleagues to stand up and to
stand with me for the least of these, to show some compassion for all of
our citizens regardless of where they reside in the state, regardless of
how much money they have in their pockets or their ethnicity or their
race or their gender, to stand up and vote against this bill. [SPEAKER
CHANGES] Representative Brandon, please state your purpose.

To debate the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I don't even know where to begin with this bill,
but I will begin at the urgings of healthcare. And for all of you people
who are yelling about healthcare, I will let you know that it is the
majority of your party's fault. And if you go back into why we hate
Obamacare or the Affordable Health Care Act, it is because of the
mandate. We don't like the Federal government mandating anything on us.
But I will let you know that the mandate came from the Republican party.
It did not come from the Democratic party.
1989, the Heritage Foundation, the one that you guys subscribe to a lot,
made a very clear case for the mandate. And if you fast forward to when
President Clinton was in office and Hillary Clinton was trying to do her
healthcare, Newt Gingrich was the one that came up with the mandate and
in opposition to that healthcare. If you want to fast forward again to
the person that you had on your bumper sticker and was riding around all
over town and supported. He actually implemented the mandate of
healthcare in the State of Massachusetts and that is Romney.
So now here we are today still trying to fight something that you guys
started. We wanted a public option. We wanted single payer healthcare.
In order for Obamacare to even get past, we needed six Republicans to
stop the filibuster. Guess how we stopped the filibuster? We had to
agree to the mandate. That is the fact. So we're still demagogging on
this issue. We're still demagogging.
So then we passed Obamacare. Oh, and it was socialism and it was
unconstitutional and then we had a conservative Supreme Court that said,
"Guess what? No, it's not." Here we are again. Still
demagogging on this issue. And we know the real reason why we're here
and it's because we want to make sure that Obamacare does not get
implemented. But the problem here is that simply because of we want to
do something political, we still want to demagog, 500,000 people are
going to be affected. And that's when it becomes not funny.
This is just a political stunt. That's all it is. There's no reason for
us to be doing what we're doing here today. There is zero reason. It
doesn't help businesses. Ask a business, would they like to come to a
State that has an exchange program? Or a State that does not have an
exchange program? Give me your facts on that. They would never want to
come to a State that doesn't have an exchange program. They would
definitely go to one because they know that they have to employ people
who are uninsured and they have to insure those folks. And guess what,
folks? When you talk about business costs, that's about 24% of the
business' costs when they have to apply health insurance.
So now we're trying to create a system where we don't have an employee
based healthcare system. And we say no, that's not good enough. We want
people who are competing globally or other countries are taking care of
that responsibility and made sure that those folks, their people in
their country are covered. We have to compete against those countries.
We have to compete against those businesses in those other countries
that don't have that cost. That 24%.
So when you talk about jobs, and you still put the burden on making sure
people are healthy on the employer, it's hard to create jobs. It's also
hard to create jobs when you're in the United States if Virginia is
doing an exchange program and North Carolina is not. That's very
difficult. I wouldn't come here. I'd go to Virginia.
So I want you to think about what you're doing, but the biggest
disappointing thing that I see is that there's a lot of smart people
here. There is a lot of smart people across the aisle. I talk to you
every day. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you. But the
biggest disappointing of me is that how the tables have turned. I know
that you guys love to talk about Obama and what he did, and I know
remember during the whole, "Stop blaming Bush, stop blaming Bush,
we don't want to talk about that no more." But you know what? I
don't want to talk about things that happened 10 years ago anymore
either. I don't care about what the Democrats did. I don't care about
what, who, what with Medicare money and how it went. This, that and the
other. The truth is 9.4% unemployment, you own it. You own it.
The truth is is that by doing this bill, there are no more people
insured, healthcare costs are still rising high, people still will die.

Whether you hear green or red, you own it. So I urge you, before you go
down this road, and even if you do go down this road. You, there's a lot
of smart people out there. You have to fix it. No one puts you in office
just to say we don't like something. That is not governing. That is not
your responsibility. Anybody can do it. Anybody can go arou-, I don't
like this, and I don't like that, and I don't like that tha-. That's not
governing. Has nothing to do with governing. You're here to fix it. If
you don't like it, I hear all the reasons why you don't like it. I, I
hea-, and look, I hated it too cause it was a Republican bill. I'm
trying to get The Speaker to support the single payer bill. But, but,
but the truth is, is that, and I, and I introduced the state health
plan. I know that's not gonna go anywhere and I don't plan it to. But
the truth is is that for my citizens I did create a bill. I made sure
that I had a plan. Even if I don't like the Affordable Healthcare Act
because it does do a mandate and I do prefer that we don't have an
exchange program... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]
...that we just, that we cover everybody. [SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative Blust please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will
definitely yield right after my comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman
will yield. Representative Blust please state your purpose. The Chair...
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Is he finished? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ...will direct the
operations of The House. Please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To
see if the gentleman will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does
the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will yield right after my
comment, I apologize. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman does not yield at
this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I'm getting ready finish Representative
Blust. My point to you guys is this. Very smart people. We can come up
together in this body to fix the problems that you don't like. But
simply getting after, if you wanna go state to your constituents that we
took away healthcare, and for 500,000 people, and healthcare costs did
not go down, and no one got covered more than we were before, and
business is not gonna come here, and you don't have a plan to fix it? If
I'm your constituent, I'm not gonna be very happy about that. I didn't
send you to office for you just to say no. I sent you to office to fix
the problem. I am still uninsured, my healthcare cost is still going up.
And when you hit green none of that changes. What are you gonna do to
change it? That is your choice, and that is your charge. And I believe
you have every ability to do it. We have the ability as the body to do
it. And I hope for the sake of the state of North Carolina, for our
businesses who are uninsured, and for this body, that we do that. And I
urge to vote no on this bill until we do, do such a thing. I now yield.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Steinburg please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] To address the bill, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The
gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This has
been an extremely interesting exchange here this afternoon. I, one of
the things that as a new member that I kind of, upsets me a little bit I
guess. I didn't expect so much of this as, you and us, them and me, and
a lot of pointing going on back and forth. Really kind of surprises me
in a way. None of this, speaking of surprises, none of this should be a
surprise because the Republicans running for office in the Fall made it
very clear is to what they are going to do as it related to these two
particular issues. The unemployment bill number one, and perhaps not
with all the specifics, but certainly the unemployment bill number one
and, and this healthcare bill. So this is no surprise to most people
that this is what were doing. Yet there seems to be a lot posturing, and
I understand it by the other side, that they're gonna stay here, and
we're fight it tooth and nail. And there's some political gain I guess
that one might get in your own districts. But the fact of the matter is
we have overwhelming majorities, I'm not bragging about that, this is
what the voters did, they sent an overwhelming majority of Republicans
to The House and The Senate. And knowing what they know, knowing what
they know now, they knew this is what we were going to do, yet they sent
us, and they sent us to do it. Now one of the things that, one of the
really nice things that has been happening here among many of the new
members is, a couple of times a week we get together and we, we pray, we
do some Bible study, and pray, and maybe a little bit of singing trying
to get some direction from the divine as to how we're going to proceed
when we hit t-, when we hit The House floor and how we're going to deal
with, with all of these issues. And I can tell you it's been a great
strength to me, I think it's been a great strength to the other no-, the
other members. But one of the things, that are participating, but one of
the other things that.

I found fascinating was, that among this new group of freshmen, almost
to the man or woman, thank you Mr. Speaker, almost to the man or woman,
every one of the new freshman that came in said, you know, I'm not
coming here to serve to see if I'm going to get reelected. I'm not going
to pasture myself and vote yes on one bill and vote no on another bill
just to get reelected. We're here to make the tough decisions, not
necessarily the popular decisions, by the tough decisions. The decisions
that need to be made. And with all due respect to the references that
were made from Summer here about things that have occurred, statements
Republicans have made in the past, we weren't facing the financial
dilemma that we are facing now. This is an Armageddon, a financial
Armageddon. And at least someone, some members of this body, have the
courage to stand up and say, enough is enough. I may not get reelected,
but I'm going to cast a vote that my constituents, most of my
constituents sent me here to cast. We're going to do the business of the
people. If the folks back home think that we've done good job, then
we'll be rewarded and sent back. If they don't then we'll be, we'll stay
home. But I would urge every one of you, we can continue debating, but
we certainly have to acknowledge the obvious: this bill is going to
pass. It’s going to pass by an overwhelming majority and I just want to
share those thoughts with you, and I certainly appreciate those of you
who were listening. I appreciate your listening. Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate your getting their attention. And I thank you all very much.
I support the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative Charles Grant. Please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
To speak on the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
A gentleman is recognized to debate on the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm compelled to stand up and speak on behalf of
the folks that sent me up 95 to Raleigh here to speak on their behalf.
I'm not making a political statement or send a political message back
home. I'm here to let the folks back home know that I am very disappoint
that we're taking this direction. We came up here and I'm here to talk
about jobs and economic development, educational opportunity and many
other issues that come to us that our citizens want us to debate and
discuss. But when it comes to our people who are in poverty, people who
need a voice, people who are doing without, the people who are deprived,
we just don't have a lot of enthusiasm for them and that's one of the
faults I find in this body thus far. I'm disappointed. I know this bill
is going to pass; I know that. I have to speak, because I do come from a
rural county. I'm not proud of the fact that we rank at the bottom in a
lot of areas, poverty, income, crime. But I still need to advocate for
what's important to those individuals. I know this is going to be a law
here real soon in North Carolina. Expanding Medicaid in my county will
mean that we will be able to provide healthcare to ten to fifteen
additional percent of our population to receive healthcare benefits.
This will mean that my rural hospital, Southeastern Hospital, will
realize in that gain of their bottom line of approximately nine million
dollars annually and turn the tide, at this point, in which they are
providing healthcare to individuals at approximately thirty million
dollars in charges that they're passing along for someone else to pay.
Someone's going to pay that cost for those individuals and what this may
mean to them is that, they're extending their hand, trying to provide
good services, trying to provide and expand clinics out into rural
Robeson County. Rural Robeson County, which is the largest county in
this start in terms of land mass, to get into rural parts of Robeson
County, to get to where these people are who need to have access to
care, and they're really looking at this point in time that they may
need to stop doing some of that outreach for this particular reason.
They're providing care to folks that just cannot pay and that's
affecting their bottom line.

we have the fourth year of 1994 revision of kid when the data so that
all have the opportunity of the house today I am it is not an El Paso
Healthcare ?? ID have not stopped one thing to do this again and I made
out here, it's been hell would go in with a sandwich of ?? (SPEAKER
CHANGES)
and I guess we'll all be sending this tale about the financial times of
it is too late and many cases they, they feel happening in the next
window in the woods as a possible stations in some cases of timer and
all the hot seat opportunity for timing of the citizenry and seeing
women have enabled to have a Health Care is one of those cherries and by
twice since time is about only one of his dismay at the disease to as a
moral obligation is is a red stain my history and the citizens in the
dollar fell on a time of the support is below 80 ice doesn't quite fit,
was arrested again in session and sentencing and so you know in modern
times and the reading some shared by the members and we will be taken as
a holiday smart person would display station purposes it's that time
there has been no page is the speaker ladies and gentlemen that you'll
be switched by that time, the issue well already benefits if you to
build its ?? at home is as his 1S80 ?? control of the state and, as a
time that's happened a little guilty eyes on the path into pots are a ??
wants to ceiling and file state , which is the right -time we stopped by
to the sixth spell instead of action coalition and Medicaid Riley says
things are all liability to send the ?? -continues to distinction about
this at the end of the affordable Health Care this time, only and that
the only occasion stacked the Federal contractors for a living hell out
of his strategy is because it would not leave no comment at the time of
$16,000,000,000,000 settlement the smell of ?? is now the bill would
make we all knew that subpoenas, that ?? of a hole that the data
consistency which way they can reference to times, and the other hand,
and time and one: the made- we all the way the house from military ??
action to well spend money we have independent-study a bit strong
military without those who visits and ??, if any of the leaves the
strong military all, does anybody would say that we lost in the act
states pastels and will be at the time we upheld a statement issued a
statement by lining ?? we all make it clear that we all just in the
white ?? ………….

and the ANC would have a Texas State, a system else and then we'll have
these bills about the interstate ?? of the body of the site of the 1987
hostile 190092 they will stay not at 40 and that was the expense of a
well- executed for anybody's one time and thus not have a nonstick
because we will set the tone of the scene of the opposite of exchange
money back no way to take time to victory margin of 40 and comments that
allow them to status within about the times of disaster relief just a
couple years ago one only has ?? confines of the date of enactment that
somebody a costly half what has announced that his ouster of citizens
media that all we had so it was not have the money chimes and would not
have money announced a deal of houses as the ?? all I could do this and
disillusioned all about is that it's the week at the same 9712 years ago
we had that same box could get riled nobody is buying CDs 99 states west
is Knowles and we all seek the ouster of the 1953 when times to help you
in idea of these lakes of time until we get right down to half its
audience in person, Brawley PlayStation time as a question and done in a
few dozen U.S. use of the healthcare you I'm $16,000,000,000,000
(SPEAKER CHANGES)
one way we bother you us on our current affordable Health Care plan
before the fire rescue mammals report January decision time of 16 in
Chiapas posse insurance cost of the time half year with family will be
over $20,000 that she has no plan already $1000 into the system drive
for me by arrest under a reform Health Care: the position brought to the
NFC expected to have the chance to make investment cost would have
little in city would be a time-cost to the added a little bit: OK also
critical comments at times they have you ever find a message he has a
funny to be that sounds just instead to allow local cities person Larry
Hines major purpose and stayed on them because recognize made no one of
the state of access to the occasion of the house and at the end of the
government can sense that I'm busy copy of the suspects of his equipment
artist all his mail it wasn't safe and well have won three of one of my
time was a visit on because in the middle, and it's all, I use this,
that's not what they are some people at a time-only locals and will send
out a deal that they want to know that use copy, sat and sun-sentinel
has been updated to hustle and bustle would rather have the ability of
it is amazing slow in the waiting to what some republican, said time is
not that we have an estimate of his points and Riley know he's likely to
Oscar to 21 husbands and is on, when we get people that the deserts and
ordained riled up the taxpayers of imported so when you put it in the
house at the summit is the right back into time as it is impossible
??....

[Speaker changes.] "Why would I want to send two billion to New
York or New Jersey, or back east...to anywhere, they would just squander
it...or give it to Colorado." Governor Jan Brewer, Republican
Governor of the state of Arizona, speaking about this very issue. Bring
it a little closer to home...Governor John Casick????? of
Ohio..."this is not an endorsement of Obamacare, I think it's
something to be considered separately from people's strong feelings,
including mine." About Obamacare, as he also decided on the same
issue that it was best to expand a exchange in his state and, so again,
as we reach out for lofty statements from leaders nationwide...at the
end of the day, even they come to the right conclusion to do the right
thing for the right reason despite the rhetoric and so, as
Representative Steinburg said, maybe they're not tryin' to get
re-elected, maybe they're sayin' we're just gonna' do the right thing
cause it's the right thing for our people at this time and it's the best
that we could do. So I'm gonna ask you to vote against this bill. I've
heard Representative Burr and, even the Governor say, we can fix this
down the road...and I come back to my point, we can fix this now...we
coulda' fixed it with those amendments and so I'd ask you to vote
against this bill. Hold yourself to a higher standard, you have that
great majority as you said. You can do the right thing, you got the
great majority. The challenge is within you, it's not us. The challenge
is within you and your party. Do you wanna do the right thing for the
right reason for your people? We're only your conscience but we can't
make you do the right thing. Only you can do that. I'd ask you to vote
against the bill, demand more for the people of North Carolina. Let's do
better for 'em.
[Speaker changes.] Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we've been
debating this matter in related amendments for two and a half hours.
The Chair has taken the decision that tomorrow we will start promptly at
1PM and we will take a vote on this bill at 1:30PM tomorrow. The
Democratic caucus will be allotted twenty of the thirty minutes for any
remaining debate that they would like to put forth, and the Republican
caucus will have ten minutes. Any members who feel that they cannot get
their comments in in that period of time may wish to continue to debate
now. And we do have one other bill on the calendar this evening. Further
discussion, further debate. We'll be at ease for a moment to provide
opportunity...there are a few members from both the Democrat and
Republican caucus that indicated they were stepping out...we will wait
thirty seconds before I put the question. The question before the House
is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 4 on
its second reading. All those in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no.
Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock machine, record the vote.
75 having voted in the affirmative and 39 in the negative. The House
Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 4 has passed its second reading and
will remain on the calendar.
[Speaker changes.] Representative Moore, please state your purpose.
[Speaker changes.] A motion pertaining to...
[Speaker changes.] The gentleman is recognized for a motion.
[Speaker changes.] Mister Speaker, move that Senate Bill 14, short title
is Increase Access to Career Technical Education, be added to today's
calendar for immediate consideration.
[Speaker changes.] The motion is to add Senate Bill 14 for immediate
consideration on today's calendar. Further discussion, further debate?
[Speaker changes.] Representative Luebke, please state your purpose.
[Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speakers and Members of the
House...actually this bill is not up on dasboard, best I can see.
[Speaker changes.] Representative Luebke, the reason..if the gentleman
will indulge...the reason it is not on the dashboard is because it is
not on the calendar at this time. It would be available on the
dashboard immediately after this motion is passed.
[Speaker changes.] Sorry, I wanted to speak on the bill, I....

213:
Speaker1: Apologise?
Speaker changes: On the bill or the motion?
Speaker changes: Well let me speak on the motion.
Speaker changes: The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion.
Speaker changes: Speaker and members of the House, this bill is being
rushed for no good reason. It was heard yesterday in the education
ministry, it wasn’t heard in the ministry, Mr. Holloway came in and gave
us a briefing on the House version of senate bill 14. Then it was
decided we have to have any xx education that noon, and the bill was
voted out, some discussion we had some good discussion, but it was a
special meeting. We have not in the three years that , under speaker
Tellis we have not had special education xx we waited on Monday, Tuesday
we got a two-hour slot. And it has been rushed forward first for the
meeting today; now I objected to this coming forward because I disagree
with the speaker’s assessment that it was a routine bill. It is not a
very routine bill, it is an important bill. And I know you all got the
votes to put it on the counter but it’s really not right to put it on
the counter, to rush it through like this. The word on the screen is
that the Governor wants to have a prèss conference on this later this
week. That is not a good reason for this chamber to suspend the rules
and put it on the counter. So I would urge the people to vote no on this
motion. Thank you.
Speaker changes: Representative Leubke xx that the chair would inform
the member that this is not a suspension of the rules this is a simple
majority vote, I leave that to the House, add this matter to the
counter.
Representative Moore please state your purpose.
Speaker changes: To debate the motion.
Speaker changes: The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion.
Speaker changes: Mr. Speaker, members, this bill this is not all
abnormal, this is not suspending the rules, rules perfectly
contemplate when a bill comes out of a committee it can be added on to
the counter at any time with leave of the House . That is not a
suspension of the rules, and this bill xx was not controversial I think
the senate pass this 49 to 0. The bill was considered an education and
the reason we have taken it up is because it is an important bill and it
should be acted upon and we are still here, we can work with it, we can
get it done, and it probably spend more time whether to put it on the
counter then we would actually be debating the bill. Ask the members to
vote yes.
Speaker changes: Further discussion further debate. If not the question
before the House is to motion by Representative Moore to update the
counter with the bill discussed, all those in favor vote aye, all those
opposed vote no, the clerk will open the vote .[pause]All members
wishing to vote please do so this time. Clerk will allow the machine to
vote. Ninety seven having voted in the affirmative and sixteen in the
negative the motion passes. Senate bill 14 and clerk will read.
Speaker changes: Senate bill 14 to direct the Board of Education to
develop career in College and for High school Diplomas, increase access
to career and technical institutions , teachers in Public schools and xx
with the State Board of Community colleges to increase the number of
students enrolling in career and technical education in high need xx
areas; Representatives of North Carolina in act.
Speaker changes: House waits for five minutes to the members to access
the bill which is already on dashboard we will continue at 6 :54 or
5:54. House has been recessed for five minutes.[pause]
Speaker changes: Mr. Speaker, speaker.[gong]
Speaker changes: The House will come to order. Xx to close the
doors.[pause] Representative Holloway please state your purpose.
Speaker changes: Discuss the bill.[gong]
Speaker changes: Gentleman is recognized to debate the bill.
Speaker changes: Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill comes to us from the
senate but there is also a sister bill in the House and it comes
originally from the Vocational education committee which I had the
pleasure of chairing, the House bill that was filed as Representative
Blackwell, Representative Blust and Representative Chatham, of our Pxx
group who have all signed the bill and this bill was heard yesterday in
the education committee…

There was a full debate, all questions were answered. Nothing
was rushed through the committee, and certainly would be glad to take
any questions today on the floor. But what the bill does is it tries to
get the ball rolling on vocational education. We've all talked about it
for years and years, how we need more career education and career tech
preparedness in our school, and this helps to get that ball rolling.
What it does is it simply directs the state board of education to come
up with a plan and tell us how to do that. And what the impact would be
of putting a career or college ready insignia on diplomas and to create
a plan on how kids could achieve that. It also directs the state board
of community colleges to work with the state board of education as
partners to help put more career tech in our schools. That's what it
does. Then the plan will be brought back to the general assembly for the
ed oversight, which is a joint committee. And of course ed oversight
will then make the recommendations and bring it to the full body of the
house for everyone to have for discussion. So this is just simply to get
the ball rolling. it just again directs them to come up with a plan,
present it to us, and move from there. It doesn't dive into the weeds
and it doesn't go any further than just giving them that general
direction discussed yesterday in house education. It was the House Bill
but this Senate Bill is the exact same bill that was discussed
yesterday, in education, word for word. I'll be happy to take any
questions. Mr. Speaker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative Blackwell, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speak on the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm just going to largely 2nd what Representative
Holloway said and in response to some of the concerns expressed by
Representative Luebke. This isn't a routine bill in my judgment. It is
an important bill, but the reason that it's here is because of the
almost unanimous support for the bill and the concepts that it
represents. And quickly I would describe those important features as
these: This is an effort to help our high school students while they are
still there to focus on what it means to get a high school diploma.
That, a high school diploma has a large relationship to what they're
going to do after high school. It is something that should lead
somewhere. And by adding the concept of this endorsement to the diploma,
it causes families and students and guidance counselors and teachers to
have to at least discuss and think about what do you plan to do with
your life when you leave high school? Are you going to be ready to go to
work? You may want to take this career path and get that endorsement
that says to anybody that looks, you not only got a diploma from a high
school but you have not a hodge podge of credits that allowed you to
graduate but you've taken course work that the state board and the
school system believed prepare you for career. On the other hand if your
desire is to go on to college you have a similar opportunity to focus on
those courses and to end up graduating with courses that hopefully means
you're prepared for college when you go there and you're less likely to
end up in remediation courses. It's not a tracking bill that forces
anybody to go into certain direction but it offers them the opportunity.
If they're undecided and they want to have a mixture of these courses
and after discussion they can get sort of a combination endorsement. The
other thing that I would mention in addition to the gain that I think we
can have by focusing everybody on thinking about what comes after high
school is that in additionally, has provisions to require D.P.I. to take
a look at the licensure process as it relates to our C.T.E. teachers. It
asks them to first determine if we have a shortage of particular types
of career and technical education teachers in particular school
districts, to identify where those needs are and to look at what the
current requirements are with an eye towards maybe opening up
alternative ways of satisfying the requirements to allow you to teach.

Technical, vocational career oriented coursework. This is a good bill
for us to start with. I think there will be more things coming later,
but it’s here today because we have a chance today to get started on
this. And I hope that an overwhelming majority of the House will agree.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak to the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady’s recognized to debate the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the House. I
rise in support of this bill. I am on the Education Committee, and we
did hear from the House Bill yesterday, fully read it. And we heard it
again today from the Senate side, and I found that kind of, you know, we
worry up here a lot about things being rushed through. When we were in
the majority I heard from the minority the same accusations that the
minority says to the majority. This actually was, to me, this process
worked and for me, I’m speaking for myself. I had a lot of emails that
came to me after the discussion yesterday and that told me a lot. These
are people listening into these committees out there in the state. If
you don’t think they are, watch your emails and time and the dates they
send them to you. So I responded to, by getting answers to some of those
questions, and I got them before I went into committee, but I asked a
couple of questions today from the Senator, Senator Tillman, and had
those answered. I found it quite interesting that DPI’s spokesperson at
the end, Rebecca Garland, said that there were very excited to have this
bill. That’s been quite a while when we’ve heard a DPI staff person
excited about a bill we’re sending them over there telling them
something to do. So, I thought that was very interesting. I had some
concerns about the tracking piece with the freshman but that question
was answered. What was told to us yesterday by the House side and today
by the Senator that that has been taken care of. This bill is going to
start with juniors and seniors, those last two years. It’s a good bill.
There are a lot of kids that need this pathway. It’s happening in some
programs throughout the state. This is going to broaden that, but I just
want to point one thing out to all of my colleagues. This bill has
bi-partisan sponsorship. Representative Cotham had to leave, but she is
one of the sponsors of this. She’s an educator, a teacher, and an
assistant principal, I believe, but last night if any of you watched the
Presidential debate and then on the committee you heard me say it again.
You hear me say it again. Last night the President in his speech made
reference to this career technical path. He has talked about it before
last night, but he made it a part of his plan, and if you were watching,
very few times did he get a bi-partisan standing ovation. But on this
bill, he did. So we’ve got bi-partisan sponsorship here in the state,
Mr. Speaker, and we’ve got bi-partisan support on this bill at the
federal level, national level. So I ask you to please support this bill,
and let’s get it rolling. There are a lot of kids that want to be on
these paths. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I had spoken many times about Board of
Education to look at these kinds of programs for our students. Every
student is not college bound. Every student is not college bound. I,
myself, if I know what I know today, Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I would
be in this Chamber wearing a suit and a necktie because those are the
ones that don’t make any money. We don’t make any money. Now, all my
friends that wear khakis, blue, and other kind of uniform has a, what
you call, a endless flow of money because they use their skills in their
trade to make additional money once they leave the job in which they
own. So, this is what is needed for those kids who are not college
bound, who has the skill, who wants to do something else, and believe
me, now, we spent in our community 265 million dollars to build a
military headquarters in our community. We have what you call ?? Black
Company which is they provide most of your cement concrete

?? can all use the windows DNA team Sunday and is he have it so happens
that he access to I lurks in DNA must become members you know the state
house at the coffee, activists is sometimes a nexus of an happy that
person with making them might not be entertained at age activity, but
still not supported the local, state the cause of the fact that I'm else
can one wanted not return to school an opportunity to respond to a
school in any receiver at the end the day in ?? person as PlayStation
purpose since a bill does rent but I make no one speaks of one's was
well within one year OPS are all in all ?? out of office and ?? ?? you
?? hierarchy are able way stations seen a movie or laser has made no
announcement and have a tough as 28 location education and the GOP plan
to have enough incentive as: thank ?? person of the PlayStation purpose
to be briefly on does recognize that the item is needed as a house, I do
feel that the Russian Hill and stay out of ongoing to the time I have
not on the overall is one the substance of the dow is not much substance
in a neighbor's my ?? that's one of its one question of which he chimed
in all 36 on a store in processing president it's not a question for the
house passed the senate may substitute several 14 on signing follows a
maker of all President Clinton ?? ?? who was important 110, Fuhrman and
one points and may substitute for a time of 40 tests in reading about
Texan it imports of Johnson of over one Astro session president it's not
a question for the times as much as it may substitute several 49
surrealist painter say out while president doesn't ?? until the water
control and subsequent ?? of the season and housing complex and
counterfeit is acting you get me out in the fight for smart, has begun
properly and one we will say, send all four indicate the limits of 13 is
the son of one year by consensus from you and the recall of his Time
Warner unveiled a question we will take about 130 one as the sun will be
a case of minority caucus sentence saying the majority caucus time to
also encounter content of the wired all simply times report session
tomorrow will be added as announces it hasn't been a son changes and
partly ?? the operations keyboard and a ?? ?? ……..

elections Hardister, add.
Judiciary B, Saine, add. Horn, remove.
Judiciary C, Saine, remove. Horn, add.
Alcoholic beverage control, Bowles, chair, Lucas, vice-chair, Warren,
vice-chair, William Brawley, Larry Bell, Bumgardner, Dollar, Earle,
Fisher, Graham, Hall, Holloway, that's Duane Hall, Holloway, Malone,
Murry, Samuelson, Starnes and West.
Biotech and Healthcare, Moffitt, chair, Brian Brown, vice-chair, Charles
Graham, vice-chair, Deborah Conrad, Kelly Alexander, Brian Brown, Jerry
Dockham, Jean Farmer-Butterfield, Jim Fulghum, Charles Graham, Yvonne
Holley, Linda Johnson, Donny Lambeth, Tom Murry, Michele Presnell,
Setzer and Wells.
Energy and emerging markets, Saine, chair, Millis, vice-chair, Moore,
vice-chair, Stone, Blackwell, Robert Brawley, Mark Brody, Becky Carney,
Catlin, Collins, Cunningham, Floyd, Hager, Hanes, Jeter, Murry, Ridell,
Schaffer, Terry, and Wray.
Military and Agriculture: Torbett, chair, Goodman, vice-chair, Szoka,
vice-chair, Avila, Hamilton, Howard, Lewis, Martin, Murry, Pierce,
Richardson, Shepard, Speciale, Steinburg, Tine, Tolson, Waddell, and
Whitmire.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the chair's heart is warmed to know
that you all have listened to me from time to time. I think I misspoke
earlier when I mentioned Senate bill 10 being taken up tomorrow. What I
meant to say was House bill 10. I suspect there's a difference between
the two.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Rep. Bowles, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
For an announcement please.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The gentleman is recognized for an announcement.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The appropriations subcommittee on Justice Public Safety will meet in
room 415 at 8:30, the topic will be the North Carolina crime labs and we
welcome any member to attend the meetings if they would like to hear
from the director.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Rep. Murry, please state your purpose.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
For an announcement.
The gentleman is recognized.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The lists that the clerk just read off for all the population of the
subcommittees of the House Commerce and Job Development committee, so
that's what was just read off. So if you have any questions about which
subcommittee you were placed on and would like to make a change or
remove it just let me know, and if you don't remember what subcommittee
you were just read into, feel free to contact me and we can accommodate
any request. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Rep. Stone